A Well-Regulated Illusion

Trump, Newsom, and the Federalized Guard: Who Really Commands the “Militia”?

When the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment into the Constitution, they paired the right to bear arms with a reference to “a well-regulated militia” being “necessary to the security of a free state.” For centuries, Americans have debated what that actually means. But here’s what often gets overlooked: If the National Guard is that militia, then it sure doesn’t belong to the states when it really counts.

As a former member of the Air National Guard, I’ve experienced firsthand what it means to train, deploy, and serve in a dual-status force—part federal, part state. I served in war as a US Air Force officer, fighting terrorism, and stateside as a counter-drug asset going after cartels and other drug related criminals with the consent of the state’s governor and the President. In fact, to operate in another state we needed their governor’s permission, often in the form of a memorandum between states.

In theory, the Guard answers to the governor until it’s federalized. In practice, the president can override a state’s authority with a signature. This makes sense in time of war, but not when that Guard is turned against its own state. That tension is more than hypothetical. It just played out again under Donald Trump.

A few days ago, Trump federalized the California National Guard over Governor Gavin Newsom’s explicit objections to respond to unrest in Los Angeles. This was the first time a president had done so against a governor’s will since 1965—when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama Guard to confront segregationists defying civil rights law.

The irony should hit everyone across the political spectrum. Conservatives often argue that the Guard is a modern embodiment of the constitutional “militia”—a counterbalance to federal power. But what kind of militia can be seized by the very federal power it’s supposed to balance?

Let’s be clear: the Guard does incredible work., and is extremely important. I’ve deployed with men and women who juggle civilian careers with military readiness, who train to serve their neighbors and, if needed, their nation. They are citizen-soldiers in the truest sense. Responding to civil unrest at a Governor’s request, natural disasters, etc. But when a president uses the Guard as a political tool—especially against a state’s wishes—we cross a constitutional line.

(As an aside, when the guard is activated federally, without a governors consent, they are no different than federal army troops and have no law enforcement authority unless the insurrection act is invoked.)

In Los Angeles, we see the Guard used not to assist local leadership, but to impose federal will. And worse, as a flex. That’s not defending freedom—it’s undermining state sovereignty. And it reveals something troubling: the so-called “well-regulated militia” is only state-controlled until the federal government says otherwise. Then, it’s not a local force—it’s just another arm of presidential power.

You don’t have to be a liberal governor to worry about that. Imagine the precedent this sets. If a president can activate a state’s Guard to intervene in civil unrest, what’s to stop them from doing so for a political rally, or to suppress protest, or to enforce executive orders the state opposes?

For all the rhetoric about resisting tyranny, this is where the rubber meets the road. The Founders feared standing armies under the thumb of a central authority, but the world changed and a standing army is now necessary. However, that concern is why they wrote the militia into the Constitution. But the National Guard, as it operates today, is structurally no different from a federal force when push comes to shove. And if we’re honest, that should make anyone concerned about executive overreach sit up and take notice.

This isn’t an academic argument. It’s a live constitutional contradiction that affects real people, real freedoms, and the balance of power between Washington and the states.

If we believe in the Second Amendment’s invocation of a state-based militia, we need to reconcile it with the uncomfortable truth that the National Guard, as currently structured, doesn’t really fit that mold. Either we redefine what we mean by “militia,” or we face the fact that state-controlled military forces don’t exist in a meaningful way when they can be federalized at will.

I loved serving in the Guard. I believed in its mission. But I also believe in the rule of law, constitutional integrity, and checks on power. What’s happening in California isn’t that. It will be essential for the next president to consider changes to how the Guard can be mobilized, especially when the state and president find themselves at odds.