Committee hears hours-long debate on ‘Defend the Guard’ bill to restrict overseas combat deployments

Senate Bill 38, the “Defend the Guard Act,” would bar the governor or other state actors from releasing Kansas National Guard members for active federal combat service unless the U.S. Congress has declared war or taken other official action under its constitutional powers, committee adviser Jason Long said at the opening of the hearing.

The measure, Long told the Kansas Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, would “prohibit the release of the Kansas National Guard or any member of the guard for active duty combat unless the United States Congress has declared war or taken official action under its constitutional powers to call on the guard,” and would not limit Guard assistance for domestic disaster response or other non-combat missions.

Supporters who testified said the bill would close a perceived loophole in federal mobilization law and protect Guardsmen from being sent to foreign combat without explicit congressional authorization. Dan McKnight of Bring Our Troops Home said the proposal would “restore the constitutional law and close[] loopholes that have led to the misuse of the National Guard,” and later explained proponents’ view that recent practice has allowed the executive branch to federalize Guardsmen without a formal declaration.

Other proponents, including private citizens Scott Horton and Sean Held, framed the measure as protecting constitutional war powers and reducing overseas deployments. Horton described the bill as part of a larger political movement to “end the wars” and to press elected officials to require congressional authority before extended overseas combat deployments.

Opponents from the Kansas National Guard and its leadership said the bill would risk federal funding, missions and readiness. Lieutenant Colonel Jacob McElwee, legal advisor to the Adjutant General, told the committee that Guardsmen have dual status as both Kansas National Guard members and as members of the National Guard of the United States and that federal law and decades of court decisions allow the federal government to mobilize Guardsmen for federal service under Title 10 orders. McElwee said the practical effect of the bill could be to reduce Kansas’s ability to respond to disasters and other state needs because federal funding and assigned missions could be moved elsewhere if the Guard’s federal availability is constrained.

Keith Marshall, legislative liaison for the Kansas Adjutant General’s Department, said the state receives roughly $270,000,000 in federal support that could be jeopardized if the Guard’s accessibility for federal missions is limited. Marshall referenced a recent change in the National Defense Authorization Act that, he said, demonstrates the Department of Defense can reassign missions and funding when it cannot access Guard units.

Retired Colonel Michael Kelly warned of national defense consequences, telling senators the Guard supports components of the nation’s strategic posture and that limiting federal access could affect readiness for high-end scenarios.

Committee members pressed both sides on practical and legal consequences. Senator Gossage and others asked whether the bill would change existing practice or merely restate law; Long and proponents said the bill narrows when Guardsmen may be released for active federal combat as defined in the bill. Senators asked about the distinction between Title 10 and Title 32 status, disaster response, and whether federal funding could be withheld; proponents acknowledged uncertainty about potential federal remedies, while Guard witnesses pointed to 32 U.S.C. §108 as a statutory basis for potential withholding or reassignment of missions.

The bill text, as Long noted, includes a definition of “active duty combat” and a definition of “official declaration of war.” Long said the bill’s effective date would be July 1 if enacted.

The committee took no final action on Senate Bill 38 at the hearing. The chair closed proponent and opponent testimony after scheduled blocks and adjourned the hearing for committee consideration.

The hearing drew a mix of veterans’ groups and private citizens supporting the bill and senior Kansas National Guard officials opposing it, and committee members asked staff to gather further legal and fiscal information before any final vote.

Votes or formal motions were not recorded for Senate Bill 38 during the hearing; the committee instead opened and closed testimony and set follow-up questions for staff to answer.