Fact check: Can the President unilaterally deploy the National Guard for domestic peacekeeping under Article IV, Section 4?

1. Why the Question Matters Today: Litigation and a Presidential Memorandum Are Central

A June–October 2025 cluster of analyses shows that the debate is live because a recent presidential memorandum purports to federalize National Guard personnel under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, and California has filed suit seeking to enjoin implementation, arguing the Governor’s role was bypassed ^[1]. The litigation frames the practical stakes: control of state Guard units, command relationships in domestic emergencies, and the balance of federal power against state executives. The dispute is not just academic; it impacts who decides on troop deployment for domestic peacekeeping and whether governors retain veto or mere notice roles under the statute ^[1].

2. What the Statute Actually Says—and Why Text Alone Isn’t Settling

Analysts consistently note that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 authorizes calling National Guard members into federal service in circumstances like rebellion, and the statute contemplates orders issued “through the governors of the States,” which on its face implies a role for governors ^[1]. Yet the sentence structure and legislative history leave open whether that role is a formal channel requirement or a substantive consent mechanism. The ambiguity in statutory text produces two readings: one where governors are procedural intermediaries, and another where governors have meaningful control—textual ambiguity drives litigation ^[1].

3. Historical Precedent Gives Mixed Signals—Eisenhower and Beyond

Historical practice is cited as precedent for presidential authority: President Eisenhower’s 1957 federalization of the Arkansas National Guard to enforce school integration is invoked to show the President can act over a governor’s objections ^[1]. Yet analysts caution that historical episodes are not clean analogues because statutory frameworks and political contexts have shifted, and courts treat past uses as persuasive but not dispositive. The Eisenhower example demonstrates federal action despite state resistance, but does not answer the modern statutory and constitutional questions under § 12406 with certainty ^[1].

4. Scholarly Views Diverge on the Governor’s Role—from Ministerial to Substantive

Authors referenced in the analyses argue different functional meanings for the phrase “through the governors,” with some contending the governor’s role is largely ministerial—an administrative channel that does not substantively limit presidential authority—and others suggesting the statute contemplates a meaningful consultative or gatekeeping role ^[1]. The divergence matters because a ministerial reading empowers unilateral federal deployment; a substantive reading preserves significant state control. Scholarly disagreement reflects real legal uncertainty that the courts are positioned to resolve ^[1].

5. Litigation Is Poised to Clarify—but Courts Will Face Hard Constitutional Questions

The ongoing legal challenge by California to enjoin the memorandum signals that judicial resolution is likely; analyses predict courts will have to resolve statutory interpretation and possibly constitutional separation-of-powers and federalism issues ^[1]. Courts will evaluate whether the President complied with statutory procedures, whether governors possess independent decisionmaking authority under the federal statute, and how precedent like Eisenhower fits within modern law. Judicial review will be decisive in settling whether unilateral federalization is lawful under § 12406 ^[1].

6. Competing Agendas Shape How Parties Frame the Issue

The dispute’s framing reveals distinct agendas: federal actors advocating for flexibility in responding to rebellion or insurrection emphasize executive authority and national uniformity; state actors defending governors’ roles stress state sovereignty and localized civil-military control ^[1]. Litigation posture and public commentary from both sides aim to influence courts and public opinion. Understanding the strategic incentives of litigants helps explain why textual ambiguity is litigated aggressively rather than quietly administratively resolved ^[1].

7. What to Watch Next: Key Legal and Political Indicators

Observers should track the California litigation’s filings and any expedited motions, governmental memoranda explaining the President’s statutory reading, and subsequent executive actions or state responses asserting governors’ authority ^[1]. Judges’ early interpretations of the “through the governors” phrase, historical practice evidence, and reliance on Eisenhower-era precedent will shape outcomes. Immediate indicators of resolution will include preliminary injunction rulings and appellate timelines, which will clarify whether unilateral federalization is legally sustainable ^[1].

8. Bottom Line: Unilateral Presidential Deployment Remains an Open Legal Question

Current analyses conclude that the President’s ability to unilaterally deploy the National Guard under Article IV, Section 4 and § 12406 is not settled: statutory text suggests a governor role, historical precedent shows presidential action can occur despite state objection, and litigation will likely supply the definitive interpretation ^[1]. Until courts issue clear rulings, practitioners and officials must operate in a zone of legal uncertainty, balancing federal responsiveness against state prerogatives and anticipating judicial resolution. Expect contested deployments to trigger rapid legal challenges ^[1].