Fact check: Can the president deploy the national guard to a state without going through the governor of that state

1. Summary of the results

The question of presidential authority over National Guard deployment is legally complex and controversial. While some sources confirm the president's power to deploy the National Guard without gubernatorial consent under specific circumstances ^{[1] [2]}, others argue this violates state sovereignty ^[3]. The authority stems from Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 12406 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 ^{[1] [2]}, but comes with significant limitations - troops cannot arrest civilians and are restricted to protecting federal personnel ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original question:

• This power has been used only four times in the last century, primarily during school desegregation efforts by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy ^[2]
• Even when deployed under federal authority, National Guard troops have limited powers and cannot perform civilian law enforcement duties ^[4]
• A recent controversial case involved President Trump deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles against Governor Newsom's wishes ^{[1] [5]}
• Legal experts suggest the president's authority extends mainly to supportive roles, distinct from the broader powers under the Insurrection Act ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

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

• Federal Executive Power: The presidency benefits from broader interpretation of deployment powers, as it increases federal authority over state matters ^{[1] [2]}
• State Rights Advocates: Governors and state sovereignty supporters argue against unilateral federal deployment powers ^[3]
• Legal Community: Legal experts take a middle ground, acknowledging presidential authority while emphasizing its limitations ^[4]

The reality is that while such deployments are technically possible under specific circumstances, they are highly unusual and legally contentious ^[5].