The National Guard Cannot Serve Two Masters

When Americans think of the National Guard, they picture soldiers filling sandbags before a flood, rescuing families after a hurricane or rebuilding after a natural disaster. However, over the last quarter-century, those same guardsmen have consistently served thousands of miles from home in missions that have little to do with defending their own communities and have done so without a declaration of war.

To protect its core mission, the National Guard should be restored to its primary historical purpose as a domestic emergency force first and a state-based strategic reserve second, rather than being treated as a rotational component of the federal government’s global force posture.

Defend the Guard legislation is a commonsense corrective that requires a declaration of war from Congress before National Guard units can be federalized for combat operations overseas. The proposed policy changes would strengthen the nation’s domestic preparedness and restore the National Guard to its historic role as a strategic reserve.

The National Guard cannot continue to serve two masters: their respective communities and Washington’s endless global commitments. Defend the Guard legislation would reassert the former’s traditional primacy.

During the Global War on Terror and beyond, the National Guard’s rotational integration into the regular military has come at the expense of its domestic mission. During Hurrikane Katrina, National Guard units deployed in Iraq from Gulf Coast states were unable to respond in the aftermath. In 2024, 700 members of the Tennessee National Guard were deployed for Operation Spartan Shield while portions of the Volunteer State were ravaged by Hurricane Helen.

Initiatives like the Emergency Management Assistance Compact can ameliorate such shortcomings by sharing personnel and equipment between states, but they cannot resolve the fundamental tension between the National Guard’s duty to its respective states and the burden of overseas deployment.

Supporters of the status quo often present National Guard deployments overseas as the norm, but history suggests otherwise. It was not until the 1973 Total Force Policy that the National Guard became a rotational element of the United States Army and Air Force, meaning they were considered deployable units on par with federal reserve components and the regular military.

The National Guard served admirably in this role and returned to its strategic reserve capacity upon the end of World War II. The status quo, however, changed as the elimination of the draft compelled the federal government to more fully incorporate the National Guard into the Department of Defense to address the feared personnel shortfall with the lapse in conscription.

In the early 2000s, the Global War on Terror created tension between the National Guard’s traditional duties to their respective states and expanded obligations to the federal government. The National Guard constituted about 45 percent of total forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and over 18 percent of U.S. casualties.

It continues to serve in its post-1973 role, despite the end of the war on terror, without a declaration of war or even an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. National guardsmen were among those killed during the Tower 22 attack in Jordan in January and those U.S. service personnel killed during Operation Epic Fury.

The National Guard’s current role also weakens its effectiveness as a military institution with a primary function of defending the homeland. While the military writ large has suffered from recruiting and retention shortfalls, the National Guard faces the added challenge of asking its members to serve both state and federal missions.

The act of balancing a civilian career with the demands of military readiness becomes more difficult with the competing demands of state and federal missions. That strain has raised concerns about recruiting and retention, as guardsmen are asked to perform too many jobs for too many masters far too often. Defend the Guard could help address these issues by restoring the National Guard to its traditional role within the federal system.

For those who want a more restrained U.S. foreign policy, Defend the Guard offers a unique policy opportunity. Returning the National Guard to its traditional role would force the Defense Department to prioritize its overseas commitments in line with the principles outlined in the Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy.

Without the nation’s strategic reserve on tap, Washington would need to marshal its personnel more judiciously and pursuant to less ambitious global aims. If the Department of Defense wishes to continue using reserve components to augment its global mission, it has at its disposal the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Naval Reserves.

Defend the Guard legislation is not a radical idea, but merely an effort to restore the National Guard to its primary domestic mission and its relationship to the federal government. Doing so would protect and keep focus on the National Guard’s essential domestic functions and prioritize its historic role within the Department of Defense — that of a strategic reserve.

Twenty-five years of overcommitment have distorted the National Guard’s relationship to the country and the communities from which it is drawn. Given this recent history of misuse, it is time to defend the country more prudently by first defending the National Guard.