Adjutant general says federal activation under Title 10 would transfer command; committee questions Guard role in immigration enforcement

Major General Greg Knight told the Senate Government Operations Committee on Jan. 21 that the National Guard can be federalized under Title 10, which transfers command authority to the federal government and changes who controls Guard members while they are on federal orders.

The discussion matters for Vermonters because committee members raised fears that Guard personnel could be used in domestic immigration enforcement — a use that would be legally and politically sensitive if ordered at the federal level.

The committee asked how the Guard would respond if federal authorities sought its help for mass arrests or deportations. Knight said the question was hypothetical; he emphasized he did not know what a mission request would look like and noted that the nature of orders—whether humanitarian or law‑enforcement focused—would determine how the Guard would be employed. “We execute lawful orders,” Knight said, adding that federal activation usually moves Guardsmen into Title 10 status and places them under a federal commander.

Kirk Kaplan, the Guard’s attorney, provided historical and legal context during the hearing and said the national‑level authority to federalize Guard forces is grounded in the U.S. Code. Kaplan cited the provision discussed in the hearing (referred to in the transcript as “12 302 of 10 of the U.S. Code”) and reiterated that once service members are placed on federal orders their chain of command is the federal chain, not the state adjutant general’s command. Kaplan also noted statutory limits and administrative constraints discussed in the hearing, including activation length limits referenced in the transcript.

Committee members pressed for clarity about what that would mean in practice for Vermonters who fear forcible removals. Knight said he could not answer definitively without seeing the specific mission order. Committee members also noted, without committee confirmation from the adjutant general’s office, that at least one detention related to immigration had occurred in Franklin County; the committee did not make a determination about the Guard’s role in that incident during the hearing.

Committee members also compared possible Guard missions to recent southwest‑border deployments, where Guard units were used largely for surveillance and support rather than for direct, hands‑on detentions. Knight and Kaplan said governors can register objections to federal orders, but such protests do not automatically alter the legal effect of federal activation; legal disputes over orders would ultimately be resolved through administrative or judicial processes.

No formal actions or votes were taken on the matter during the hearing. Knight and the Guard staff offered to provide additional legal and operational detail to the committee if requested.