Elie Honig On Trump's Power: Could He Deploy The National Guard To Other Cities?

Shawn

3 min read

Post on Aug 30, 2025

4.8

Share

Elie Honig on Trump's Power: Could He Deploy the National Guard to Other Cities?

Could a former president deploy the National Guard? Legal expert Elie Honig weighs in on the limits of presidential power and the potential ramifications of such an action.

The question hangs heavy in the air: Could Donald Trump, or any former president, deploy the National Guard to cities across the country? The hypothetical scenario, though seemingly far-fetched, has sparked intense debate following recent political events and concerns about potential future actions. Legal expert and CNN commentator Elie Honig recently addressed this complex issue, shedding light on the constitutional boundaries of presidential power and the potential legal challenges involved.

The immediate aftermath of the January 6th Capitol riot saw the deployment of the National Guard to Washington D.C., a move that raised questions about the executive branch's authority in such situations. But could a former president, stripped of the official power of the office, legally order such a deployment? The answer, according to Honig and other legal scholars, is a resounding no.

<h3>The Limits of Presidential Power: A Constitutional Analysis</h3>

Honig emphasizes that the power to deploy the National Guard rests fundamentally with the current president, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. This power is derived from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests the president with the authority to act as commander-in-chief. A former president, having left office, no longer holds this constitutional authority.

Any attempt by a former president to deploy the National Guard would be a blatant violation of the established chain of command and the separation of powers. Such an action would face immediate legal challenges, likely resulting in swift court intervention.

<h3>State Governors and the National Guard: A Key Distinction</h3>

It's crucial to understand that the National Guard operates under a dual system of authority. While the president can federalize the National Guard in times of national emergency, the governors of individual states retain significant control over their respective state National Guard units. A former president would have no legal standing to issue orders to state National Guard units without the consent and authorization of the relevant governor.

This dual system acts as an important check on executive power, preventing a potential abuse of authority. The governor's role serves as a crucial safeguard against the unilateral deployment of the National Guard within their state.

<h3>The Specter of Unconstitutional Actions and Legal Ramifications</h3>

Honig's analysis underscores the serious legal implications of any attempt by a former president to circumvent the established legal framework. Such actions would likely constitute a criminal offense, potentially leading to charges of obstruction of justice, or other violations of federal law. The gravity of these potential consequences serves as a strong deterrent against such unlawful actions.

Furthermore, any attempt to deploy the National Guard without proper authorization would trigger a constitutional crisis, potentially undermining the stability of the government. The courts would be required to intervene decisively to uphold the rule of law.

<h3>Conclusion: Maintaining Constitutional Order</h3>

Elie Honig's insightful analysis highlights the crucial importance of upholding the constitutional framework governing the deployment of the National Guard. The clear delineation of power between the current president, state governors, and the judiciary serves as a critical safeguard against potential abuses of authority. The hypothetical scenario, though concerning, underscores the strength of checks and balances within the American system of government. It reinforces the necessity of adhering to established legal procedures and respecting the rule of law, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions. The consequences of ignoring these fundamental principles are far too severe to risk.