Fatal ICE shooting could result in another messy battle for control of the National Guard
By Andy Rose, CNN
(CNN) — With rising anger and tension over the fatal shooting of a woman by an ICE agent, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is telling residents to be ready for something they haven’t seen in Minneapolis and St. Paul since the destructive aftermath of George Floyd’s murder: National Guard troops on the streets.
“I directed the National Guard to be ready should they be needed. They remain ready in the event they are needed to help keep the peace, ensure public safety, and allow for peaceful demonstrations,” the governor said in a statement Thursday.
With the fragile situation in the Twin Cities following an aggressive increase in immigration enforcement there, another battle over control of the National Guard could be brewing as the president continues to test his authority to use the military in domestic conflicts and state officials continue to fight back.
Walz – himself a retired National Guard veteran – indicated a direct confrontation with federal agents is not on the table, saying in an executive order troops would “support public safety, security services, and law enforcement activities.”
In contrast to the unrest surrounding Floyd’s killing, the possibility of calling up the guard now comes in a very different context, following a year of President Donald Trump’s mostly unsuccessful efforts to federalize National Guard troops in large cities with Democrat-run administrations, calling those cities “lawless” and “hellholes.”
In his first public statement on the shooting of Renee Nicole Good on Wednesday, Trump immediately struck an antagonistic tone, posting, “The reason these incidents are happening is because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents on a daily basis.”
The governor – a long-time Trump critic and 2024 vice presidential nominee who announced this week he is dropping out of his race for reelection because of intense criticism of the state’s handling of welfare fraud allegations – described his relationship with the Trump administration earlier this week as having to “fight a war against the federal government every single day.”
President Trump’s efforts to take over National Guard deployments have largely failed
While governors have broad powers to use their National Guard troops for many reasons – from securing streets during times of unrest to distributing supplies in the wake of natural disasters – the president can only deploy federalized members inside the United States in the case of “rebellion or danger of rebellion” or if federal law cannot be enforced with “regular forces.”
That distinction was critical in a series of losses in court for the Trump administration’s efforts to use troops in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago against the will of the governors of those states.
The Portland and Chicago deployments were stopped by federal judges before troops ever got into the streets, and courts repeatedly ruled there was not enough evidence federal agents needed military help to enforce the law, a view confirmed last month by a majority of the US Supreme Court.
“The Government has not carried its burden to show that (the law) permits the President to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” a majority of the Court wrote.
On New Year’s Eve, Trump announced on Truth Social he was ending his efforts to deploy National Guard troops in those cities but suggested the retreat was only temporary.
“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” wrote Trump.
Trump suggested in October he could attempt to bypass legal limits on his deployment of the military by invoking the Insurrection Act, a 19th century law allowing federal troops to be deployed inside the country in the event of an insurrection that a state government cannot handle on its own.
“So far it hasn’t been necessary, but we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters in the Oval Office at the time. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that.”
Trump hasn’t used the act – which has only been invoked a handful of times in recent decades to suppress rioting – in either of his terms, but Walz expressed concern Wednesday that Minneapolis could be the tipping point if people protesting the shooting become violent.
“Do not take the bait. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act,” Walz said. “Do not allow them to declare martial law. Do not allow them to lie about the security and the decency of this state.”
The governor added he wants local citizens to feel they can trust any members he may deploy.
“These National Guard troops are our National Guard troops. They are teachers in your community. They’re business owners. They’re construction professionals,” Walz said. “They are Minnesotans.”
The plea for calm – and concern about federal backlash – was echoed Wednesday by Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey.
“They want an excuse to come in and show the kind of force that will create more chaos and more despair,” the mayor said. “Let’s not let them.”
The potential for a clash between local law enforcement and federalized troops was a concern in Trump’s previous efforts to send in National Guard troops where they weren’t requested by the local government. The court challenges kept that situation from ever arising.
But with the potential for Minnesota National Guard troops to try to keep peace alongside federal immigration agents, long-standing questions over the control of the guard could be tested.
States and DC have struggled before over control of troops
The National Guard was formed out of state militias that existed since the founding of the country, and has a unique structure: Each state’s guard is normally controlled by its governor, but can be called up for federal deployment by the president for military operations outside of the US, or for domestic operations under the specific circumstances that were hashed out in court for months.
One notable exception is the National Guard in Washington, DC, where the president has direct control and has employed the guard to respond to what he has declared as a “crime emergency” in the District since August. Additionally, Tennessee National Guard troops have been part of the Memphis Safe Task Force established by the Trump administration with the cooperation of that state’s Republican governor.
It is very rare for a president to put a state’s National Guard troops under federal control against the will of the state’s governor, and the starkest example came in 1957. Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus mobilized the National Guard to Central High School in Little Rock, ostensibly to “maintain and restore order” during the court-ordered desegregation of the school.
But, at the governor’s direction, the troops actually prevented nine Black students from entering the school, despite the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling. This infuriated President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had earlier received a promise from Faubus to enforce the court’s decision, according to the National Archives. The president cited the denial of the students’ constitutional rights in federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.
“Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of the courts,” said Eisenhower.
The following day, with the assistance of troops from the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, the same National Guard unit previously told to keep Black students out followed orders to ensure their safety as the “Little Rock Nine” finally were able to enter the school on September 25, 1957.
Six years later, President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard specifically to remove that state’s governor, notorious segregationist George Wallace, from a doorway at the University of Alabama where he had been preventing two Black students from registering.
“Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States,” said Alabama Adjutant General Henry Graham after saluting Wallace.
Even in that case, Kennedy promised to keep control of National Guard troops for no longer than necessary.
“It will be unfortunate if members of the Alabama National Guard now in federal service are required to remain away from their homes and jobs for any extended period this summer,” Kennedy wrote in a telegram to Wallace. “The duration of their duty is largely up to you.”
Kennedy’s promise to minimize federal involvement in enforcing constitutional rights is in stark contrast to Trump’s vow to employ troops in response to purported high crime in multiple major cities, a claim those cities’ leaders have disputed.
Trump’s defense of his authority to use the military in response to protests – which is similar to his expansive view of what law enforcement can do in response to confrontational protesters – was laid out clearly in August when Trump spoke about DC police officers under federal control reportedly being spit on by demonstrators.
“Now they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want,” Trump said.
With the president’s initial response to Good’s fatal shooting echoing the attitude that she was at fault and Minnesota law enforcement saying federal officials are making it impossible to do their own investigation, the tension between federal and local authorities is only growing, as fingers keep pointing.
“From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government. To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem, you’ve done enough,” said Walz.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
