Explainer: The US Regular Military, the National Guard, and the Midterm Elections

The second Trump administration since taking office in 2025 has deployed National Guard and active-duty military units domestically in highly unusual ways. This has led experts and political leaders to express concern that the administration may use military forces—especially the National Guard—to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections. But what makes the National Guard different from the active-duty military? What authority do both have? Is it a problem if either is deployed to the polls?

What is the National Guard?

The National Guard is one of two US reserve military forces. In contrast to the regular military, which reports to the president, the National Guard is under the command of its respective state or territorial governor. National Guard units draw their lineage most directly from the militias of the Revolutionary War. (Their seal features the minuteman!) As reserve forces, those who serve in the National Guard are citizen-soldiers. They have civilian jobs (e.g., teachers, plumbers, lawyers, construction workers) but spend one weekend a month (plus two weeks a year) doing military training.

How is the National Guard different from the reserves?

US regular reserve military forces (also known as “the reserves”) are under the control of the president, as active-duty personnel are. However, National Guard forces are by default under the command of their respective state or territorial governor. National Guard deployments authorized by state governments under the governor’s control are routine and often include assignments such as natural disaster response, border patrol, or assisting local law enforcement. Each state has its own laws about gubernatorial use of the National Guard.

Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in 2025. When is the president in charge of such units?

In certain situations, the president can bring the National Guard under federal control. The federalized units become part of the active-duty military in such cases. These situations require explicit congressional legislation. The most well-known authority for domestic deployment is the Insurrection Act, which allows the federalized National Guard and the military to deploy in specific conditions such as insurrection or rebellion. Once the National Guard is “federalized”, the president is in charge. The National Guard is most often federalized at the request of a governor or with a governor’s consent. Governors will request federalization when dealing with significant challenges to obtain additional resources that active-duty military can provide. President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in 1992, for example, in response to riots in Los Angeles after a request from the governor of California at that time. Bush’s move allowed support from active-duty Marines and provided federal funding for the deployment. National Guard forces may also be federalized and serve abroad with congressional approval. This occurred during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and still occurs today in the Middle East.

The National Guard can also serve under a “hybrid” status, remaining under the command of the state governor while the federal government pays the troops and provides federal benefits. This type of mobilization is common after natural disasters and during border security missions. 

In extreme circumstances, the president can federalize the National Guard over a governor’s objection. In this case, the National Guard is part of the federal military chain of command and therefore takes orders from the president rather than a governor, even if the latter did not agree to relinquish control. Such cases, however, have historically been limited to emergencies or times of great need.

National Guard Deployment Authorities

Trump is talking about more domestic deployments, even around the election. Is this normal?

No. Domestic deployments of active-duty military and the “federalization” of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement missions are abnormal. Before 2025, the National Guard had not been federalized to combat unrest since the 1992 Los Angeles riots, although they have been deployed in a hybrid status (under the governor’s control) more often. It is also abnormal for the president to federalize the National Guard for domestic missions without agreement from a state’s governor. The last time this happened was in 1965.

Presidents have historically been reluctant to federalize the National Guard for domestic deployments for many reasons. Such deployments can reduce public trust in the military, politicize military forces, and impact their readiness. In addition, a military presence in the streets—let alone at the polls—was considered by the founding fathers to be such an infringement on liberty that it was a principal grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence. Controversial future deployments will likely be litigated.

Can the administration deploy the National Guard to monitor elections?

No. Most experts agree that an attempt by the president to federalize and deploy the National Guard to polling stations to monitor elections would be unlawful. This is due to the strict requirements for federalizing the National Guard and because there are multiple laws that prevent federal military forces from being at polling stations. Those laws remain in effect when the National Guard is federalized. However, there are other ways the National Guard could be used. In particular, National Guard members can be present at polls if they are acting in state active-duty status. There is an ongoing debate about whether they can be deployed in the “hybrid” status.

Media reports indicate that the Trump administration has been exploring legal pathways to federalize National Guard units in service of federal immigration and law enforcement, including at polls. If the administration decides to test its executive powers and pursue this strategy quickly (or in concert with friendly governors), the courts could well end up hearing the case.