Fact check: Have any governors successfully refused to deploy National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border in the past?

1. The 2018 Exodus: Governors Pull Guards Over Family Separation — a clear precedent

In June 2018 several governors publicly withheld or recalled Guard forces asked to assist at the US-Mexico border because of the Trump administration’s family separation policy, demonstrating state-level leverage. Reports at that time named governors including Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker among those who refused, and at least eight states announced they would not participate in border missions tied to child-family separations ^{[1] [2]}. These actions showed that governors can and did exercise discretion over State Active Duty and Title 32 activations when they judged federal objectives or policies incompatible with state priorities.

2. What 2018 actually proves about legal authority and limits

The 2018 refusals underscore the practical and political authority governors wield over state-controlled Guard forces: governors control National Guard activations unless the federal government invokes Title 10 federalization, which removes state control. The 2018 withdrawals were political decisions tied to a specific policy controversy, not court rulings that redefined federal power over the Guard; the episode therefore demonstrates successful gubernatorial refusal in practice, particularly where governors framed deployments as endorsements of federal policy they opposed ^{[1] [2]}.

3. 2025: Renewed clashes, lawsuits, and individual refusals reshape the terrain

In 2025 disputes re-emerged as Democratic governors challenged or sued over Trump administration deployments to domestic cities, arguing constitutional and statutory violations; California’s governor has taken matters toward the Supreme Court, and states including Illinois and Oregon have litigated the deployments’ legality ^{[4] [5] [7]}. Concurrently, individual Guard members in Illinois publicly said they would refuse orders to deploy to Chicago, and litigation has delayed some activations, showing that refusals now involve legal action and individual conscience as well as gubernatorial decisions ^{[6] [8]}.

4. Multiple layers of resistance: political, judicial, and individual

The contemporary response to 2025 deployments combines political refusals, court challenges, and personnel resistance, creating friction that can delay or alter federal plans without a single sweeping precedent. Governors’ public objections and legal filings — and state officials threatening institutional exits from bodies like the National Governors Association — signal coordinated political pushback, while lawsuits and service-members’ refusals introduce legal and operational obstacles that have already produced postponements or altered mission scopes ^{[7] [5] [6] [8]}.

5. Competing narratives and potential agendas behind refusals

Actors on opposite sides frame refusals differently: governors and state attorneys-general emphasize state sovereignty, constitutional protections, and community safety, while the administration asserts broad executive discretion to activate Guard units for domestic support missions. Media and opinion pieces warn of escalation or alternative strategies such as private contractors, suggesting an agenda to delegitimize state resistance or to rationalize federal actions; readers should note that political actors tailor explanations to legal and partisan aims ^{[4] [9] [8]}.

6. What history suggests about future standoffs at the border or in cities

The record shows governors can successfully refuse or withdraw Guard deployments under politically charged circumstances, and that refusals can be reinforced by litigation and individual noncompliance; however, federal options like Title 10 activation or alternative force arrangements can limit state blocking power. 2018 illustrated effective political refusal when governors declined mission cooperation, and 2025 shows a more legally contested environment where outcomes may hinge on courts and on whether the administration replaces Guard forces with federal troops or other contractors ^{[1] [2] [5] [9]}.

7. Bottom line: precedent exists, but the battlefield has shifted to courts and personnel

Governors have precedent for refusing to deploy National Guard troops tied to border or domestic migrant operations, first visibly in 2018 and again through coordinated governance and litigation in 2025; these actions have sometimes succeeded in delaying or preventing deployments. The decisive differences now are the increased use of lawsuits, public legal filings, and instances of individual Guard refusal, meaning future disputes will likely be resolved through courts and personnel choices as much as through gubernatorial statements ^{[1] [2] [4] [6] [8]}.