Pentagon and Guard Leaders Clash Over Capitol Security

Listen To Story Above

The latest Pentagon decision to extend National Guard troops at the Capitol has unveiled a concerning rift between Defense Secretary Austin and the National Guard Bureau chief. This dispute highlights a deeper issue that echoes the fundamental concerns of America’s Founding Fathers.

A defense memo seeking additional Guard support for the U.S. Capitol Police revealed a request for 2,280 guardsmen beyond March 12. Such requests typically undergo extensive scrutiny through the Defense Department’s channels, requiring detailed justification and often taking weeks to process.

🚨EXCLUSIVE J6 INVESTIGATION🚨

– Thanks to new House Speaker Mike Johnson, We now have permission to release Capitol CCTV footage proving that a member of Nancy Pelosi's security detail, Special Agent David Lazarus, perjured himself on the stand during the Oath Keepers trial.… pic.twitter.com/lEJxcHlKmX

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) January 15, 2024

The current request, however, was rushed through in merely two days with questionable justification. The Capitol Police based their appeal on a Department of Homeland Security terrorism advisory bulletin from January 27, 2021. This bulletin’s language was notably tentative, using terms like “believes” and “suggests” regarding potential threats from domestic extremists.

Legal complications arise when deploying military personnel to support law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the government’s authority to use troops for law enforcement duties. Additionally, Defense Department guidelines outline six specific criteria for evaluating civil authority support requests. The Capitol Police’s application appears to fall short on multiple fronts.

More significantly, the National Guard Bureau chief raised two crucial objections. First, Guard resources are already stretched thin supporting COVID-19 relief, natural disaster response, and overseas missions. Second, involuntary Guard activation requires governor approval, which many state leaders have explicitly opposed.

The situation becomes more precarious with reports that the Defense Department might consider involuntary activation orders. This would exceed the defense secretary’s authority, as only governors can mandate non-federalized Guard members to perform such duties. The only alternative would be invoking the Insurrection Act, a rare presidential power.

🚨Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals to Tucker New Jersey State Police BEAT DC National Guard to Capitol on J6th:

"I had DC National Guardsmen and women that were infuriated. They were so pissed off that they weren't ALLOWED to respond. They were extremely upset." pic.twitter.com/rxLCUGk95M

— Danny De Urbina (@dannydeurbina) August 11, 2023

Any attempt to bypass these legal requirements would create a constitutional crisis. Such actions would circumvent both Posse Comitatus restrictions and congressional authority granted under Article I of the Constitution.

This scenario presents a dangerous precedent where federal authorities could potentially commandeer state militias for domestic policing, disrupting the crucial balance between state and federal powers. This undermines states’ constitutional responsibility to protect their citizens’ rights.

The defense secretary’s apparent willingness to overlook established laws and regulations while risking constitutional conflict should alarm all Americans who value freedom. This situation exemplifies precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent – the concentration of military power to police citizens, a historical stepping stone toward authoritarian rule.