Fact check: Can governors refuse federal orders to deploy their state's National Guard units?

1. Summary of the results

The evidence conclusively shows that governors CAN refuse federal orders to deploy their state's National Guard units. This is legally established under 32 U.S.C. § 328 ^[1]. This authority has been demonstrated multiple times in recent history:

• In 2020, when 4 out of 15 governors refused Trump's request to deploy Guard personnel to Washington D.C. ^{[1] [2]}
• In 2006, when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to send additional troops to the California-Mexico border ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements need to be considered:

• The federal government's primary recourse against non-compliance is financial: they can withdraw funding for the state's National Guard ^[4]
• There's a distinction between different types of deployment authority, particularly regarding Title 32 authority which specifically allows governors to refuse presidential requests ^[3]
• A recent Texas court ruling has reinforced that state compliance with federal guidelines is "completely voluntary" ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question oversimplifies what is actually a complex legal landscape ^[4]. It's important to understand that:

• The relationship between federal and state authority over National Guard units isn't simply about "refusing orders" but rather about responding to "requests" from the federal government ^[1]
• This system creates a balance of power where:
• States benefit by maintaining control over their military resources
• Federal government maintains influence through funding mechanisms
• Governors have significant discretion in deployment decisions ^[4]

The consistent reporting across multiple sources suggests this is a well-established legal principle rather than a contested political issue.