Fact check: Can state governors override presidential orders to deploy National Guard troops?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, state governors cannot override presidential orders to deploy National Guard troops when the president acts within his constitutional authority. This conclusion is strongly supported by recent court decisions from June 2025.

The US appeals court unanimously ruled that President Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the National Guard, specifically rejecting California Governor Gavin Newsom's attempts to override the presidential deployment ^[1]. The court found that Newsom had no power to veto the president's order ^[1].

The president's authority stems from constitutional powers that allow the commander-in-chief to call the National Guard into federal service whenever "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion," or when the president is unable to "execute the laws" of the U.S. ^[2]. When federalized, the National Guard operates under presidential command rather than state control.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that emerged from the analyses:

• The Insurrection Act provides specific presidential powers that may further limit gubernatorial authority, though using the Guard for interior enforcement in unwilling states would be "unprecedented and 'push the envelope of the idea of the state militia and National Guard'" ^[3].
• Governors retain some legal recourse even when they cannot directly override presidential orders. The analyses show that governors can still challenge the use of the National Guard under other laws through the court system ^[4], as demonstrated by Governor Newsom's ongoing lawsuit.
• The distinction between state and federal control is crucial - when the National Guard is federalized by presidential order, it effectively removes state gubernatorial authority over those troops.
• Recent real-world precedent exists with the Los Angeles deployment, where 2,000 additional National Guard troops were deployed despite Governor Newsom's condemnation of the move ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it poses a legitimate constitutional question. However, it could potentially mislead by:

• Implying equal authority between state and federal powers when the constitutional framework clearly establishes presidential supremacy in matters of federal law enforcement and national security.
• Omitting the legal complexity surrounding when and how presidential authority can be exercised, which varies depending on the specific circumstances and legal justifications invoked.

The question's neutrality actually serves it well, as it allows for examination of the constitutional balance of powers without predetermined bias toward either state or federal authority.