The Montana Legislature has introduced House Bill 404, known as the "Defend the Guard Act," which aims to restrict the deployment of the Montana National Guard to active combat duty without an official declaration from Congress. Introduced on February 11, 2025, by a bipartisan group of legislators, the bill seeks to ensure that any mobilization of the National Guard for combat operations is sanctioned by federal authority, aligning with constitutional provisions.

The key provisions of the bill stipulate that the Montana National Guard cannot be deployed for active combat unless there is a formal congressional declaration or action. This measure is designed to reinforce state control over its military forces and to prevent what proponents view as unauthorized or unnecessary military engagements. The bill also outlines the powers of the governor regarding the National Guard, emphasizing the need for clear definitions of terms such as "active duty combat."

Supporters of the bill argue that it is a necessary safeguard against overreach by the federal government and a means to protect the rights of state residents. They contend that the measure will ensure that Montana's soldiers are not sent into conflict without proper justification and oversight. However, the bill has faced opposition from some military and political leaders who argue that it could hinder the state's ability to respond swiftly to national emergencies or conflicts.

The economic implications of the bill could be significant, as restrictions on deployment may affect federal funding and resources allocated to the National Guard. Additionally, the bill raises broader questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities, particularly in matters of national defense.

As the legislative session progresses, the "Defend the Guard Act" is expected to spark further debate among lawmakers and constituents alike. If passed, it could set a precedent for how states manage their National Guard units in relation to federal military actions, potentially influencing similar legislation in other states. The bill's future remains uncertain as it moves through the legislative process, with discussions likely to focus on its constitutional implications and the potential impact on military readiness.