Fact check: Can the President override a governor's decision to refuse National Guard deployment?

1. A legal power with a caveat: what 10 U.S.C. § 12406 actually says and why it matters

10 U.S.C. § 12406 grants the President authority to call the National Guard into federal service in emergencies including rebellion and insurrection, and the statute requires that such orders be issued “through” state governors, creating a statutory interlock between federal authority and state officeholders. Legal interpreters dispute whether “through” is purely procedural — a transmission channel — or substantive, meaning governors retain a veto or significant role before federalization proceeds. That ambiguity has become the focal point of litigation and political maneuvering because the text is consequential in deciding whether a governor can refuse and thereby block federal mobilization ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Recent actions show federal power can be exercised despite state objections

Federal officials have in recent weeks moved to federalize specific Guard elements for deployments despite state and local resistance, demonstrating that the executive branch asserts a robust unilateral federal prerogative. Reporting on the Defense Secretary’s mobilization of 200 Oregon Guard members for a Portland mission illustrates the practical effect of federalizing troops under existing authorities; that action underscores that the federal government can and does act without waiting for acquiescence from state governors when it believes statutory conditions are met ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Governors, cities and state attorneys general are pushing back through courts and politics

State officials and municipal actors responded to federal deployment plans by filing lawsuits and amicus briefs, arguing that broad federal activations without meaningful state consent would erode local control and risk creating a template for expanded federal policing. Actions such as Michigan and Denver officials joining California’s litigation against deployments to Los Angeles show a coordinated legal strategy to constrain executive power and emphasize constitutional federalism and public-safety accountability at the state level ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Courts and scholars are split on whether a governor can block federalization

Analysts and legal commentators diverge: some read §12406 as guaranteeing only a ministerial role for governors, meaning that the President’s authority to federalize is effectively supreme in statutorily listed circumstances; others argue the governor’s participation is legally significant and could delay or constrain federal activations. This scholarly dispute has practical stakes: courts faced with emergency deployments must reconcile statutory text, precedent on federalism, and operational realities — a balancing act that can produce different outcomes in different jurisdictions ^[1].

5. Legislative responses are already in motion to clarify or change the balance

In reaction to federal mobilizations and the legal uncertainty, lawmakers introduced measures such as the “Defend the Guard” bill which seeks to recalibrate the legal baseline by narrowing federal deployment powers and strengthening state control over Guard forces. The push for legislative reform highlights that Congress remains a central actor able to rewrite the allocation of authority; until Congress acts, statutory ambiguity persists and the executive and states will continue to contest the boundaries in courts and practice ^[6].

6. Practical constraints and timelines shape on-the-ground outcomes regardless of litigation

Operational realities — including mobilization timelines, command-and-control logistics, and political risk — often dictate whether a federal activation proceeds immediately or becomes entangled in litigation. Even when the President has statutory authority, the process of federalizing units can take days and involve administrative steps that give governors and local officials time to mount legal or political responses. Thus, legal authority does not always translate into instantaneous deployment; implementation is shaped by logistics and litigation ^{[4] [1]}.

7. What the public should watch next: lawsuits, memos, and statutory fixes

Expect immediate litigation and administrative memos to be the primary arenas where this conflict plays out; courts will likely produce split rulings that keep the issue unsettled until either the Supreme Court resolves a clear case or Congress amends the statute. Meanwhile, pay attention to executive orders, Defense Department memoranda, and state attorneys general filings for operational signals; these documents reveal how agencies interpret their own authority and shape whether governors can successfully resist federal activations ^{[5] [3]}.

8. Bottom line: authority exists, but control is contested and unsettled

The President has a statutory route to federalize the National Guard under §12406, but the statute’s requirement that orders be issued “through” governors leaves meaningful legal and political conflict about whether a governor can effectively block that move. Recent federal mobilizations, coordinated state legal challenges, and emergent legislation show this is both a live constitutional dispute and a practical governance problem; resolution will come through a mix of court decisions, congressional action, and administrative practice ^{[1] [6]}.