Last Tuesday, the Defend the Guard bill came under scrutiny in the hearing room of the Massachusetts Statehouse. The bill aims to change the deployment process of National Guard troops to conflicts abroad.

Its introduction to the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs comes just over a month after President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to the nation’s capital to combat crime and similar actions in cities like Los Angeles over the summer, which has expanded the president’s control over state military forces.

The bill, S.2471, specifically writes that Massachusetts National Guard troops “shall not be released from the state into active duty combat unless the United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war” or has fulfilled specific constitutional requirements. Senator Patricia Jehlen first petitioned the bill earlier this year in February.

The last time Congress signed such a declaration was during World War II. Since then, National Guard troops have been deployed repeatedly across many foreign combat zones, including  Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a written statement shared with The Beacon via email, Jehlen commented on her intentions behind sponsoring the bill. 

“The Massachusetts National Guard has been commandeered by the federal government and deployed abroad frequently,” the statement read. “They have been used for ‘police actions’ and ‘peacekeeping operations,’ unofficial declarations that should not be a part of our National Guard’s expected duties.”

For Jehlen, the deployments of the National Guard by Trump, most recently with an executive order signed to activate the Tennessee National Guard to fight crime in Memphis, underscore the urgency of defining the government’s powers in this area. 

“As the federal government uses the National Guard in other states for purposes far beyond the intended scope of federal power, we must assert the limits on that federal power,” Jehlen added in the comment.

During the meeting, Jehlen said the “conversation is worthy of continuing, not just about the National Guard here, but about the constitutionality of our president’s behavior.” 

Massachusetts Peace Action, a nonpartisan activist group focused on U.S. foreign-policy issues in the state, expressed support for the bill, writing in an online call to action that it would “curtail the federal government’s ability to wage endless war without congressional oversight.” 

First introduced as H.B. 2168 in West Virginia in 2015, the Defend the Guard bill has yet to pass completely through any state’s legislature. 

“Defend the Guard has been introduced in more than 30 states,” said Jason Brand, a technology director for the state affiliate to the National Libertarian Party who gave testimony in support of the bill. “It hasn’t gone to the governor’s desk yet, but it’s growing momentum. It has a broad-based community, grassroots support.”

Opposition to the bill is largely based on questions of the legality of giving a governor this oversight.

“There are some very legitimate legal, national security, constitutional questions that we need to contemplate on this bill,” said Senator John Velis, the JCVF Chair, on Tuesday. “The bill seeks to impose on Massachusetts a legal framework that we just don’t have.” 

Committee members considered the bill’s impact on the Guard’s mission to serve both the federal and state governments. Republican Representative John Gaskey questioned whether the bill would lead to insubordination. 

Speaking to Brand, Velis added that he needed a legal explanation why the bill “wouldn’t be given the judicial equivalent of laughter.” 

In the bill’s discussion, Brand and Velis disagreed over the interpretation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which delineates how federal law can supersede conflicting state and local laws. Brand said lawyers should decide on the precise, correct interpretation of the clause, not himself and Velis.

Retired Colonel Tom Stewart, who served with the Massachusetts National Guard, warned that the proposed bill could have serious financial impacts. If troops cannot fulfill the federal part of their service and funding decreases, he said, it would affect state infrastructure. 

“If we adopt this legislation, we’re going to jeopardize our ability to fulfill that federal mission,” Stewart said. “We need to stand up and serve our federal responsibilities as well as our state responsibilities.”

Stewart, who was a battle commander of 684 soldiers during the conflict in Afghanistan, said that loyalty to the president is an important duty of the National Guard.

“We go when the president wants us, period,” he said.

Speaking on behalf of the Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, Sean Kennedy, a town councilor from Bridgewater, said that the executive branch’s overreach today resembles a king’s tyranny from centuries ago. He said this can be traced back to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, established under President George W. Bush in 2001, which sanctioned military campaigns to support The Global War on Terror.

“AUMF lingers as a blank check for presidents of any party that has power,” he said. Kennedy explained that presidents have often relied on “broad statutory authorities,” instead of formal war declarations to send troops away, blurring the lines of responsibility in government.

“When our Congress won’t own the wars, the people cannot hold them accountable either,” he said.

Brian Zarajisk, who joined the Navy over 25 years ago, said the bill would improve the lives of National Guard troops, keeping them on U.S. soil. Starting in 2003, National Guard units across the United States deployed over 300,000 Air and Army National Guard members, including 222,485 citizen-soldiers and 34,243 citizen-airmen, to support combat actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom and civil actions in Operation New Dawn. 

“We have people coming back after fighting in these undeclared conflicts. They’re being forgotten, and they’re suffering,” Zarajisk said.

Zarajisk continued that he couldn’t think of any other bill that would have such a great impact on the welfare of guard members. He spoke to the lives that would be saved by passing this bill, “from the lives that could be directly spared in these conflicts deemed not important enough to declare war, to the suicides that could be prevented from happening.” 

The committee did not reach a decision on S.2471 during the meeting, and the bill’s future remains unknown.

“Think about the heartache of the spouses, children, and parents that see their loved ones arrive home in a coffin. I’ve seen it firsthand, and it haunts me 20 years later,” Zarajisk added.