President Donald Trump has focused efforts on sending the National Guard from numerous states, to control what he believes is unchecked crime in cities like Portland, Washington, D.C. and Chicago.
One of Wyoming’s two Democratic state senators said this shows why the Wyoming legislature should pass a bill aiming to protect the state’s autonomy regarding those troops.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, told Cowboy State Daily on Monday that the “Defend the Guard Act” is meant to act as a check on presidential authority, especially in light of what is happening in some cities nationwide.
“The National Guards are not supposed to be this direct tool of the president,” said Rothfuss. “What we are seeing right now is an abuse of that authority.”
Some Republicans, however, say the bill’s intent is to limit the guard from being deployed to foreign wars without official action from Congress.
Specifically, the “Defend the Guard Act” – which has never passed the legislature – would forbid the state’s guardsmen from being deployed out-of-state into active duty combat without an official declaration of war from the U.S. Congress or some other “explicit” congressional action to repel invasion or suppress an insurrection.
If it became law, the act still would let the governor consent to use the guard as defense support in “civil authority missions” in the U.S. and its territories.
History Of The Bill
The “Defend the Guard Act” was introduced earlier this year, and multiple versions have been introduced in prior legislative sessions.
Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne, was the most recent lead sponsor. The legislature’s House Education Committee made some minor amendments and advanced it unanimously, but it did not reach an initial floor vote.
Singh told Cowboy State Daily Monday that the bill died because of legislative deadlines. Rep. Ocean Andrew, R-Laramie, echoed those comments.
If the bills don’t reach a chamber floor by a certain cutoff date, they expire.
In 2023, Andrew was lead sponsor on a similar proposal, but that bill died in committee. He also introduced legislation in 2021, but that occurred in March so it never was considered by a committee.
Former Rep. Tyler Lindholm, R-Sundance, told Cowboy State Daily he was the first state legislator to introduce a version of that bill. The House voted against allowing it to be introduced in February 2020.
Lindholm said he led those efforts because he believes the U.S. Constitution makes clear that only the U.S. Congress, through a declaration of war, can deploy National Guards from various states.
He added that although that practice hasn’t been followed for decades, it’s still important that state legislators pursue policies like this. It might be tough votes for both them and Congress, but it’s necessary, Lindholm said.
“Why doesn’t Congress lace up their $400 dress shoes and get to work?” he said.
Differing Interpretations
Rothfuss posted about his “Defend the Guard Act” on Facebook Sunday, linking a story about Trump’s deployment efforts.
He said he made the post in response to Trump’s actions.
Many Republicans have signed onto those efforts in recent years, showing a potential divide in the state party on how they view the issue, he added.
“You do have some Republicans who believe in some small, limited government … and in recent years, you have many Republicans who believe in the power of the executive branch without limit, so you have that balance,” Rothfuss told Cowboy State Daily on Monday.
But some Republican co-sponsors say their intent is more to prevent Wyoming’s National Guard from being deployed to foreign wars.
Singh said that given his age, 28, he feels a personal obligation to prevent that from happening.
“Ultimately, it’s people in my age bracket that are going to be sent into combat, so it’s my responsibility to defend those people,” he said.
Outside of political differences, there’s also been another obstacle to the bill’s passage, some say. Leadership in the Wyoming National Guard has told legislators that they fear losing federal resources if this passes, Andrew and others said.
Lindholm said that leadership has specifically been concerned about C-130 aircraft being seized by the federal government if any bill passes and becomes law.
Could It Pass In Future Sessions?
Former and current lawmakers said they’re uncertain if a similar proposal could pass in a future legislative session, but added the constitutional questions mean the issue is still relevant.
Trump’s recent deployment and attempted deployment of National Guards is just a recent example in American history, Andrew and Lindholm said.
The 1970 shooting at Kent State University, where the guard killed four students, may be decades ago but still proves why his and others’ bills matter and merit debate, said Lindholm.
Many bills die during legislative sessions due to a lack of time, which isn’t unusual, Rothfuss and others said. Andrew said that sometimes, persistence with legislative issues eventually leads to passage, which could happen with this bill.
No matter its fate, Lindholm said that history shows that who has control of the state’s National Guard –- legislatures and governors or the president – has been a sticky subject. And that isn’t ending anytime soon, he added.
“I think it’s gotten exceptionally messy over time, who does the National Guard belong to?” Lindholm said. “Because I would argue a lot of National Guardsmen signed up to serve their state.”
Steve Bohnel can be reached at steve@cowboystatedaily.com.
