Southern Invasion

My post content

🏛️ Governors' Meeting & Rising Tensions

The National Governors Association (NGA), a traditionally bipartisan group, is facing internal turmoil over President Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops across state lines without consent from the receiving states. This move has sparked a sharp divide between Democratic and Republican governors.

⚔️ Key Points of Disagreement

Unilateral Deployments

President Trump sent National Guard troops from Texas to northern states like Illinois and Oregon, bypassing local approval. This has been condemned by Democratic governors as a violation of state sovereignty

Democratic Backlash

- California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker threatened to withdraw from the NGA unless it publicly opposes the deployments.

- Newsom called the actions an “unprecedented assault” on states’ rights and urged other governors to take a stand

- Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican and co-chair of the NGA’s emergency management task force, expressed reluctance to engage on the issue.

🚨 Fallout

- Several Democratic governors, including those from Kansas, Michigan, and Minnesota, have already exited the NGA this year over similar concerns

- The NGA has remained silent on the troop deployments, prompting accusations that it has lost its bipartisan integrity

This clash highlights growing polarization even within traditionally cooperative institutions, with state sovereignty and federal overreach at the heart of the debate. Let me know if you'd like to explore the legal implications or historical precedents for this kind of deployment

🇨🇱 Texas's Position on the Deployment

Gov. Greg Abbott's Support

Texas Governor Greg Abbott publicly endorsed the deployment. He shared a photo of Texas National Guard troops boarding planes with riot shields and stated, “The elite Texas National Guard are on the ground and ready to go. They are putting America first by ensuring that the federal government can safely enforce federal law.”

Troop Details

Texas authorized 400 troops for the mission.

- About 200 troops have already arrived in Illinois, staging at an Army Reserve center near Chicago.

Their mission is to protect federal personnel and property, particularly related to immigration enforcement.

Federal vs. State Mission

It's unclear whether these troops were originally part of Texas’s state-funded border mission. If so, their shift to federal orders means they won’t be paid until the ongoing federal government shutdown ends.

Illinois's Reaction

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker criticized the move, saying Abbott should withdraw support and that deploying troops without state consent is a breach of sovereignty.

Texas has aligned itself with President Trump’s federal strategy, contrasting sharply with Democratic-led states that view the deployment as unconstitutional and politically motivated. Let me know if you’d like to explore how this fits into broader federal-state military dynamics.

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb has not opposed Texas’s deployment of National Guard troops to northern states—and has actively supported Texas’s broader border security mission. Here's a breakdown of his position:

🇺🇸 Gov. Holcomb’s Stance on Texas Deployments

Support for Texas Border Efforts

Holcomb authorized the deployment of 50 Indiana National Guard troops to the southern border in Texas. He said this was in response to a direct request from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and framed it as a necessary step to combat federal inaction on immigration enforcement

No Comment on Northern Deployments

Holcomb has not made any public statements specifically addressing Texas’s decision to send troops to northern states like Illinois or Oregon. His focus has remained on the southern border and Indiana’s role in supporting that mission.

Border Visit

Holcomb recently joined 13 other governors on a visit to the U.S.–Mexico border, where they received briefings and expressed solidarity with Texas’s border strategy.

So while Holcomb hasn’t weighed in on the controversial northern deployments, his actions and rhetoric suggest strong alignment with Texas’s border security goals.

🪖 Gov. Mike DeWine's Position

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine took a more measured stance compared to some of his peers regarding National Guard deployments.

Deployment to Washington, D.C.

DeWine authorized 150 Ohio National Guard troops to support federal operations in Washington, D.C., but made it clear that this was in response to a direct request from the Secretary of the Army, not a unilateral decision by the president.

No Plans for Other Cities

When asked if Ohio would send troops to other cities like Chicago or Portland, DeWine said, *“No, I don’t think so. We’ve committed the 150 men and women to Washington, D.C. That commitment continues. We’re certainly doing our part.”

Focus on Local Partnerships

DeWine emphasized Ohio’s efforts to improve public safety through partnerships between state agencies and urban police departments, such as targeted enforcement collaborations in cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Criticism from Ohio Democrats

Some Ohio Democrats, including former state Rep. Adam Miller, criticized the deployment as political theater and called for the troops to be recalled. They argued that the National Guard should be reserved for genuine emergencies, not federal crackdowns.

DeWine’s approach reflects a balance between supporting federal requests and maintaining state autonomy, while avoiding deeper involvement in politically charged deployments to other states.

🧭 DeWine’s Position on Texas Deployments

No Direct Criticism

DeWine has not made any statements directly criticizing Texas Governor Greg Abbott or the deployment of Texas troops to states like Illinois or Oregon.

Focus on Ohio’s Role

He has emphasized Ohio’s own commitments, such as sending 150 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in response to a formal request from the Secretary of the Army—not as part of the broader federal deployment strategy.

State Sovereignty Acknowledged

A spokesperson for DeWine noted that "Texas is a sovereign state, so one state cannot send their troops to another state without the other state inviting them to send their military there.” This suggests DeWine recognizes the importance of consent in interstate military support.

No Plans to Join Northern Deployments

DeWine has stated that Ohio has no plans to send troops to other cities like Chicago or Portland, saying “No, I don’t think so. We’ve committed the 150 men and women to Washington, D.C. That commitment continues. We’re certainly doing our part.”

So while DeWine hasn’t openly opposed Texas’s actions, he has taken a more cautious and procedural approach, emphasizing formal requests and partnerships over unilateral deployments.

As of now, no northern Republican governors have publicly supported Texas’s deployment of National Guard troops to northern states like Illinois or Oregon.

🧭 Silence or Distance from Northern GOP Governors

No northern Republican governors have vocally opposed Texas’s deployment of National Guard troops to northern states like Illinois or Oregon.

Silence from Sitting GOP Governors

While many Democratic governors have condemned the deployments, Republican governors from northern states have largely remained silent. According to recent reports, roughly a dozen GOP governors either declined to comment or did not respond to inquiries about the deployments.

Former GOP Governors Speaking Out

Christine Todd Whitman (former New Jersey governor) called the deployments “infuriating” and warned they stoke resentment and constitutional crises.

John Kasich (former Ohio governor) criticized the lack of communication and urged collaboration rather than unilateral action.

Legal Caution

Some Republican attorneys general from northern states like Ohio, Virginia, North Dakota, and Alaska did not sign legal briefs defending the deployments, suggesting discomfort with the federal strategy.