Fact check: During the summer riots in Minnesota a few years ago, did the President need or not need the Governor of Minnesota’s approval to send in the National Guard to help restore law and order?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the answer to whether the President needed the Governor of Minnesota's approval to send in the National Guard during the summer riots is complex and depends on the specific circumstances.

The analyses reveal that the President has the authority to federalize the National Guard without a governor's consent ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, the deployment of unfederalized National Guard personnel into a nonconsenting state would be unlawful ^[4], suggesting that gubernatorial approval would typically be required for non-federalized deployments.

In the specific case of Minnesota's 2020 unrest, Governor Tim Walz was responsible for deploying the National Guard, not President Trump ^[5]. This indicates that the state-level deployment occurred through normal channels with the governor's authorization, rather than through federal intervention.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• The distinction between federalized and non-federalized National Guard deployments is critical but not addressed in the question. The President can federalize the Guard without state approval ^{[1] [2]}, but deploying unfederalized Guard units requires state consent ^[4].
• Washington D.C. operates under different rules than states - the President has direct authority over D.C.'s National Guard without needing gubernatorial approval ^{[6] [7]}, which creates confusion when comparing federal powers across different jurisdictions.
• Historical precedent shows most National Guard deployments are ordered by state governors to respond to local emergencies ^[1], making federal intervention the exception rather than the rule.
• The President's authority is typically exercised for specific purposes such as emergencies or civil rights enforcement, and deploying the National Guard for general law enforcement represents a departure from historical precedent ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

• The framing suggests the President was actively considering or attempting to deploy the National Guard to Minnesota, when in fact Governor Walz made the deployment decision himself ^[5]. This framing could perpetuate narratives about federal overreach that didn't actually occur.
• The question oversimplifies a complex legal framework by presenting it as a binary yes/no answer, when the reality involves multiple pathways for National Guard deployment with different legal requirements.
• The use of "summer riots" rather than more neutral terminology like "civil unrest" or "protests" may reflect a particular political perspective on the events, though this doesn't affect the legal analysis of National Guard deployment authority.