This week, the ACLU of Connecticut and 44 other advocacy organizations signed a letter requesting Governor Lamont to sign an executive order setting “clear, establishable and durable guardrails” for the Trump administration’s use of the Connecticut National Guard.
“Before our eyes, the Trump Administration is ordering military troops into American cities, building a national policing force, and in some cases employing secret police-style tactics,” reads the letter. “These deployments rely on pretexts that attempt to obscure their true purpose—to sow fear, silence opposition, and turn our communities into places where people feel unsafe simply moving through daily life.”
While each state’s National Guard answers primarily to their state governor, they can also be activated for use by the federal government. While this is typically done with the consent of state governors, the level of control governors have over their own National Guard in the face of the federal government has been a longstanding point of contention.
This dispute has exploded in Trump’s second term, with National Guard deployments to Oregon, Illinois, D.C., Tennessee, and California all leading to legal battles between the federal government and the states. Just this morning, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to California in response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, a deployment made against Governor Gavin Newsom’s wishes, must end, and that all remaining federalized troops be returned to state control.
Preventing Connecticut’s National Guard from being used to enforce the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies was a top priority of the letter’s signees. The letter provides sample language for the Governor to use, stating that any executive order should bar “Guard personnel, equipment, facilities, and data” from being used for federal immigration enforcement actions.
Furthermore, the letter requested that the order clarify that any federalization of the Guard must first require the Governor’s consent, that any deployment of the state’s Guard to other states require the consent of governors of both the sending and receiving states, and that in-state use of the Guard should “be reserved only for the most extraordinary circumstances.”
“Together, these safeguards would provide clarity and protection for Guard members and impacted communities, ensuring that the Connecticut National Guard is not used for domestic enforcement activities that conflict with state values and priorities,” reads the letter.
The letter cited several examples of Trump’s use of the National Guard, which they believed “exceed the Guard’s intended role.” The letter cited Trump’s deployment of the Guard into various cities across the country, his suggestion that Guards use American cities as “training grounds,” his numerous threats of invoking the Insurrection Act, as well as the National Guard Bureau’s directive requiring states to prepare rapid-response units for civil disturbances.
“This rapidly shifting federal landscape makes clear that Connecticut cannot rely on federal restraint to protect our communities,” reads the letter. “Connecticut should not wait for a crisis to set guardrails that can – and must – be established now.”
In addition to the ACLU, other notable groups that signed onto the letter included the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Connecticut For All, Connecticut Voices for Children, and several CT-based Indivisible chapters.
“We have already seen the president manufacture crises to support his political agenda and deploy military forces in American cities,” said David McGuire, Executive Director of the Connecticut ACLU. “There’s nothing theoretical about the executive order we need in Connecticut to protect our communities and our Guard units from deployments that sow fear and tear communities apart. People in Connecticut are justifiably worried and deserve clear assurances that our Guard will not be used to further a federal agenda while under our control.”
Inside Investigator requested comment from the Governor’s Office regarding the letter, but have not received any response at this time. This story may be updated in the future if such comment is provided at a later time.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
