Fact check: Can the president deploy national guard against governors wishes?

1. Summary of the results

The question of presidential authority over National Guard deployment is complex and nuanced. While the president does have some power to federalize National Guard troops, this authority is subject to specific legal constraints and circumstances:

• The president can deploy National Guard troops without governor consent by invoking "10 U.S.C. 12406", but only in cases of rebellion, invasion, or when regular forces cannot execute laws ^{[1] [2]}
• However, governors retain significant authority and can reject presidential requests for National Guard deployment under Section 502(f) ^[3]
• Deploying unfederalized Guard personnel into a nonconsenting state would be unconstitutional ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are worth noting:

• This power has been rarely exercised - the last time before Trump's attempt was in 1965 during the civil rights era ^[1]
• A specific recent example occurred when President Trump attempted to bypass Governor Newsom's authority by calling up 2,000 National Guard troops ^[1]
• States have sovereign territorial rights that prevent unauthorized military deployments ^[3]
• The president's authority specifically requires extraordinary circumstances such as:
• Invasion
• Rebellion
• Inability to execute laws with regular forces ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question oversimplifies a complex legal and constitutional issue. Several competing interests are at play:

• Executive Branch interests: The Trump administration argued that certain protests "constitute a form of rebellion" to justify deployment without governor approval ^[2]
• State sovereignty: Governors and states have constitutional protections and territorial rights that limit federal military intervention ^[3]
• Historical precedent: While the power exists, its rarity (not used between 1965 and Trump's attempt) suggests it's meant for truly extraordinary circumstances ^[1]

The interpretation of what constitutes "rebellion" or justifies federal intervention can be politically motivated, with federal and state authorities often having conflicting interests in maintaining control over National Guard deployment.