Fact check: Can state governors be prosecuted for refusing federal military orders?

1. Summary of the results

The question of prosecuting governors for refusing federal military orders is complex, with recent legal developments suggesting that governors have significant legal protection against prosecution. A recent Texas court ruling indicates that state compliance with federal guidelines for National Guard units is largely voluntary ^[1]. The federal government's primary recourse appears to be withdrawing funding rather than prosecution ^[1]. This is further supported by law 32 U.S.C. § 502(f), which explicitly grants governors the right to refuse federal requests for National Guard deployment ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important historical and legal precedents provide crucial context:

• The 1832-33 Nullification Crisis established that states cannot unilaterally block federal actions ^[3]
• The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal laws from compelling states to undertake specific policies ^[4]
• There is historical precedent of governors refusing federal requests, as demonstrated in 2020 when four governors declined Trump administration deployment requests ^[2]
• A June 2025 case involving President Trump's attempted deployment to Los Angeles highlighted these legal complexities ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question oversimplifies a nuanced legal situation. Several key factors need consideration:

• Constitutional Framework: While states cannot actively obstruct federal officials carrying out lawful duties ^[4], there's a clear distinction between obstruction and refusing to actively participate
• State Sovereignty: As demonstrated by Governor Newsom's challenge, calling federal deployment "unlawful" and "a serious breach of state sovereignty" ^[6], states have significant authority to challenge federal military orders
• Power Dynamic: The relationship between federal and state military authority is based more on cooperation than coercion, with the president required to issue orders through state governors ^[5]

This complex legal framework benefits different stakeholders:

• State governments benefit from maintaining autonomy over their National Guard units
• Federal government benefits from maintaining the appearance of authority while avoiding direct confrontation
• Legal institutions benefit from maintaining the balance between state and federal powers