A collection of legal responses from all 55 American governors by the National Governors Association (NGA) has started as part of a fall policy review to determine whether the Pentagon may have gone too far in governing state National Guard activities under Title 32. Governors are becoming more concerned that state authority over deployments of Guard Units during domestic and cyber disasters is being weakened by recent “readiness directives” from the Department of War (DOW).
The National Guard units are mandated by Title 32 to carry out their operation under the control of state authorities while receiving federal benefits and pay: a key mechanism that is enabling governors to have a quick response to health crises, civil emergencies, pubic and natural disasters. However, governors continue to raise concerns that Pentagon directives are limiting their powers to independently deploy forces for the specific needs of the state.
“States rely on the Guard for critical missions, from wildfire response in the West to hurricane relief in the Southeast,” said a state official familiar with the NGA survey. “Any federal directive that limits our flexibility threatens not only operational readiness but the safety of our residents.”
NGA Survey and Key Findings
The survey effort is spearheaded by the NGA’s Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee, co-chaired by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Utah Governor Spencer Cox. The Committee has a plan to compile a bipartisan summary of results, ahead of the expected hearing on Guard activation by the House and Senate at the end of this year.
The survey urges the governors to give an in-depth response relating to how DOW directives have influenced state missions in areas including:
· Disaster response plan- involving flood, hurricanes, pandemics, and wildfires;
· Deployments of cybersecurity- particularly the growing use of military Guard units for the protection of state networks from cyberattack; and
· Dual-status command authority- analyzing the effectiveness of the current state-federal power balance.
According to preliminary conversations, the growing impact of the Pentagon over training and deployment schedules is the main concern of governors. Officials from some of the states claim that Guard troops are compelled by new readiness criteria to focus more on federal operations over emergencies of the state, which causes crucial response time to be slowed.
Balancing Federal Oversight and State Authority
The battle between federal supervision and state power is not new. National Guard troops are authorized by dual-status commanders to simultaneously serve both federal and state operations. However, there has always been a blurred line between the autonomy of the state and federal control.
The operation of Guard is under a special hybrid framework. According to critics of current directives, these measures continuously shift the focus toward the federal level, regularly at the expense of localized needs.
“The Guard is a national asset, but it is first and foremost a state resource,” said a former National Guard Bureau official. “Federal directives should enhance—not restrict—the governor’s ability to deploy troops for state emergencies.”
Cybersecurity Concerns Amplify Tensions
Additional cyber defense responsibilities have been taken by state Guard forces in recent years, which helps to protect the electoral systems of the state and secure crucial infrastructure. Governors claim that the control over deployment decisions by the federal government may hamper quick state-directed cybersecurity responses.
For instance, delayed Guard deployment during ransomware attacks targeting systems of local government might have tangible impacts on public services and the protection of civilian data. NGA officials are hoping responses to the survey will provide clarification on the operational problems encountered by governors in these scenarios.
Potential Legislative Implications
It is expected that Congress’s deliberation Guard federalism reforms could be impacted by the NGA survey. Later this year, congressional hearings could explore:
· Clarification on federal vs. state control through adjustments to Title 32 powers;
· New dual-status command structure during internal emergencies; and
· Cyber mission deployment policies and readiness needs.
The objective of the NGA survey is to inform lawmakers on the practical impacts of DOW directives on emergency operations of the state through the publication of the experience and concerns of the governor.
Next Steps
The Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee will release a summary report after all 55 governors provide their responses, underscoring points of contention and consensus. Findings are anticipated to play a crucial role in determining how cyber defense, Guard readiness, and domestic deployment are debated during the next legislative session.
“This survey is an important step in ensuring that state perspectives are considered in federal decision-making,” said Governor Hochul. “Our goal is a balanced approach that strengthens both national security and state emergency capabilities.”
Legislators and governors will be closely watching as the NGA drafts its report to determine if the survey results in concrete reforms or just contribute to retaining the status quo. The result might have a permanent impact on federal-state coordination, considering the increased dependence on the National Guard for disaster and cybersecurity operations.
