So Much for States' Rights: The New Push for a Red-State Army
By Michael Kelman Portney
As the conversation around immigration and states' rights intensifies, a controversial statement from Stephen Miller, former Trump advisor, has set off alarm bells across the country. Miller’s proposition to create a “private red-state army” under presidential command and deploy National Guard troops from Republican-controlled states into blue states presents a chilling scenario. This approach would bypass the authority of Democratic governors and mayors, particularly those unwilling to cooperate with strict federal deportation agendas. This strategy is unprecedented and would turn the National Guard into a tool for national political will, undermining the autonomy of states in what seems to be a stark reversal of traditional “states’ rights” principles.
The Hypocrisy of "States' Rights"
For decades, conservative ideology has championed states' rights, arguing that states should have the autonomy to manage their own affairs without federal interference. This belief has been invoked to resist everything from federal environmental regulations to social policies like same-sex marriage and legalized marijuana. Yet Miller’s vision directly contradicts this ethos by proposing to override blue states’ elected leaders and enforce a federally driven agenda on immigration.
Imagine National Guard troops from red states being sent into states like California or New York—states whose leadership, policies, and public opinion are often at odds with the federal administration. Such a scenario raises serious questions about federalism, especially considering how it weaponizes states’ rights to serve partisan ends. It’s as if the commitment to states' rights only applies when those states align with conservative values; otherwise, they must fall in line with federal directives.
Civil War Implications?
Miller’s approach could stoke significant civil unrest. Deploying National Guard units from one state into another—against the will of that state’s government—could spark intense public protest and even lead to violent confrontations with local law enforcement, which operates under the authority of that state’s governor. This act would not only defy traditional understandings of federalism but also push the country closer to civil conflict. It echoes a breakdown in trust and cooperation between states and the federal government, and it hints at a broader, more authoritarian restructuring of state-federal relations.
Historically, the deployment of federal troops within the U.S. has been a tool of last resort, typically used in cases where state governments have failed to uphold federal law, such as during the Civil Rights Movement to enforce desegregation. But the current scenario is different: it suggests using the military as a partisan tool to enforce a divisive immigration policy that many states explicitly oppose.
Escalation as Justification?
An unsettling aspect of this proposal is how it seems engineered to provoke opposition, potentially justifying a further escalation of federal power. If deploying red-state troops into blue jurisdictions causes conflict—as one might expect it would—the resulting unrest could be used as a pretext to send in more federal forces. This cycle of escalation could lead to a normalized presence of federal authority within states that resist the administration’s policies, all under the guise of "restoring order."
The risk here is that this tactic would erode the democratic foundations of the United States. Rather than fostering cooperation between states and the federal government, it fosters division, creating "us versus them" dynamics that could escalate beyond immigration into other contentious areas. Once this precedent is set, any number of policies—environmental, economic, or even educational—could be enforced through similar means.
The Long-Term Risks to Federalism
If this strategy succeeds, it sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations, effectively undermining the system of checks and balances that defines American governance. In the long run, it could weaken the ability of state governments to act independently of the federal government, relegating them to mere extensions of the federal agenda. This flies in the face of the Founding Fathers' intent for a decentralized system that balances power between the states and the central government.
Moreover, the partisanship embedded in such a tactic would deepen the red-state vs. blue-state divide, weakening national unity. If states see federal forces being deployed within their borders as a form of political punishment, trust in the federal government could be irreparably damaged. This move would likely prompt some states to further bolster their autonomy, possibly even refusing to comply with future federal orders out of sheer self-preservation.
Conclusion: The End of "States' Rights" as We Know It?
Stephen Miller’s proposal to deploy red-state forces in blue jurisdictions shows how the principle of states’ rights is selectively applied, revealing an agenda that values power over consistency. This strategy could turn the National Guard, originally intended for state-level crisis response and national defense, into a political weapon that sidelines local governance and deepens societal divides.
If pursued, this path may lead to a fundamental rethinking of what it means to be a state within the United States. The implications are staggering, not just for immigration policy but for the integrity of American federalism. In the end, this may be less about enforcing immigration laws and more about redefining the balance of power—where states’ rights only matter when those states are red.
