Better Positioning the National Guard for 21st-Century Engagements

Carrie F. Cordero is the Robert M. Gates senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) where she leads the Securing U.S. Democracy Initiative.

The National Guard serves as a critical component of the United States’ ability to respond to emergencies. The Guard is available to protect the country from national security threats abroad and maintain public safety at home. While the National Guard resides in states as a military force under the authority of each governor, it is also available for federal missions, including fighting wars. In just the past decade, Guard personnel have been called upon to provide emergency response to devastating hurricanes, protect the southern border from unauthorized entry and conduct immigration enforcement, engage in the interdiction of illicit drugs including fentanyl, fight international terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and provide law enforcement in the U.S. Capitol to ensure a peaceful inauguration. These varied engagements each call on different skill sets and competencies. They require different levels of education, training, skills, and preparation for the Guard personnel performing them. As a result, there is a risk that Guard personnel will be stretched too thin in the coming years.

Given that legal authorities governing Guard use exist at both the federal and state levels, Congress and state governments should take a fresh look at updating authorities supporting Guard use to best position the force to respond in urgent situations in a way that ensures expertise, competence, and adherence to the rule of law. Each piece in this three-week commentary series provides a concrete recommendation for Congress, governors, and/or state legislatures to address a legislative ambiguity, anachronism, or gap in the authorities that govern the Guard. The goal of these recommendations is to modernize certain legal authorities related to Guard activities so that the service can best perform its missions.

Last year, the CNAS Securing U.S. Democracy Initiative ran a scenario exercise that focused on what would happen if a governor and U.S. president disagreed about using the Guard for law enforcement in the context of violent domestic campus political protests. Given the breadth of areas for which the Guard may be called upon, and the constitutional training and protections required for engaging in domestic law enforcement activities, the 2024 report recommends that as an alternative to Guard personnel, federal law enforcement personnel should be made more available to provide security when needed. Decreasing reliance on the National Guard for law enforcement purposes would free up limited Guard personnel and financial resources to prepare and train for missions necessary to protect the country in the 21st century. These include emergency response, cybersecurity, and, when needed, border security or other unanticipated national emergencies, such as a global pandemic.

The analyses and recommendations in this series explore ways in which the National Guard is currently being used, along with accompanying areas where the legal framework could be modernized and refined. In addition, an emerging area of National Guard capabilities and expansion includes the development and use of cyber-focused National Guard personnel, which could be the subject of further research. More than half of the states have National Guard cyber-focused units or personnel. These efforts would benefit from additional policymaker attention, given the persistent threat of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Despite the creation of new federal entities in the past decade, such as the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the National Cyber Director, the federal government has been unable to deter persistent cyberattacks from nation states including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. In some of the most alarming hacking cases, the federal government and private sector have been unable to effectively end the attack. Salt Typhoon, for example, the hack of the telecommunications industry, was ongoing as of April 2025, according to publicly available information. If the current policy approach of reducing the size and scope of the federal government continues, the role of state-level cybersecurity preparedness and capabilities will take on increasing importance and relevance. This practical reality presents an opportunity for National Guard personnel with cybersecurity expertise and capabilities to serve a critical function in the years ahead.

The short essays in this series approach the future use of National Guard personnel from the perspective that they will increasingly be called upon for complex domestic purposes. Each essay focuses on an activity or legal authority related to Guard use, including a concrete recommendation for legislative or executive action at the state or federal level. The commentaries include suggestions for modernizing the Insurrection Act, updating statutory authorities that govern state use of the Guard, eliminating loopholes that concern posse comitatus, improving state-level legal training for Guard personnel, and recalibrating the use of the Guard on core mission sets. These analyses and recommendations aim to improve the legislative framework that governs Guard activities, so that the service is best positioned to operate effectively, with clear legal parameters, authorities, and training.

About the Commentary Series

In February 2024, CNAS launched a project on federalism and national security. This portfolio has taken shape under the CNAS Securing U.S. Democracy Initiative. Recognizing that the 21st-century United States increasingly relies on its system of federalism to rebalance the centers of power and authority across a range of public policy issues, the Securing Democracy Initiative has developed a body of work focused on states’ authorities, roles, and responsibilities that relate to national security functions. Increasing reliance on the U.S. federalist system of government presents both challenges and opportunities for strengthening national security. This commentary series and the December 2024 report Stress Testing State Power: When Governors and Presidents Diverge on Matters of National Security are components of this research effort.

Each commentary in this series explores a current trend or dynamic in modern uses and authorities of the National Guard. Expert authors explore how the Guard is currently being used and will be increasingly called upon in years ahead. Authors provide recommendations for modernizing and clarifying legal authorities for National Guard deployment, and for legislative action at the state and federal levels.

The CNAS project on federalism and national security is made possible with the generous support of the Democracy Innovation Fund, Defending Democracy Together Institute. As a research and policy institution committed to the highest standards of organizational, intellectual, and personal integrity, CNAS maintains strict intellectual independence and sole editorial direction and control over its ideas, projects, publications, events, and other research activities. CNAS does not take institutional positions on policy issues, and the content of CNAS publications reflects the views of their authors alone. In keeping with its mission and values, CNAS does not engage in lobbying activity and complies fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. CNAS will not engage in any representational activities or advocacy on behalf of any entities or interests and, to the extent that the Center accepts funding from non-U.S. sources, its activities will be limited to bona fide scholastic, academic, and research-related activities, consistent with applicable federal law. The Center publicly acknowledges on its website annually all donors who contribute.