Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers press Defense leaders on domestic troop deployments, legality and costs
Loading...
Summary
Multiple members pressed DOD witnesses over recent domestic deployments of armed forces and federalized Guard units to U.S. cities, asking for cost figures, legal justification and commitments not to deploy troops to polling places.
Lawmakers used the House Armed Services Committee’s FY27 posture hearing to press Defense Department witnesses on the recent and controversial use of federalized National Guard and active‑duty forces in U.S. cities, asking about legal authority, cost and limits on deployments near polling places.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D‑OH) told the panel that since June 2025 the administration has deployed more than 10,000 federalized guard troops and active‑duty Marines to six American cities, and cited CBO and Senate committee estimates of hundreds of millions in costs. He asked witnesses to commit on the record that DOD would not deploy troops to polling places in November 2026. Assistant Secretary Joseph Humay said deployment decisions flow through legal and White House review processes and that he would follow legal guidance; he said he recognizes Title 32 authorities when applicable. NORTHCOM commander Gen. Greg Guillot and SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis Donovan both told members they would not follow unlawful orders.
Members raised constitutional and statutory limits, including references to the Posse Comitatus Act and recent court rulings. Guillot told the committee, “we do recognize and we followed all court orders,” and said military leaders are committed to compliance with oversight and the rule of law. Several members asked for written follow‑up and for cost data from the comptroller; Humay offered to take cost questions back to that office.
The exchange included pointed concerns about the president’s earlier public statements suggesting domestic uses of military forces and internal administration planning for rapid‑response guard units. Witnesses declined to pledge responses to hypothetical future directives beyond stating they would not follow unlawful orders and that legal review and counsel inform decisions.
The committee asked for written follow‑up on costs and legal analyses; the public portion of the hearing closed with the panel moving to a classified session.
