By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Vermont Governor Phil Scott has denied a second request from the Trump administration to utilize the Vermont National Guard. The Department of Defense sought to deploy “a few dozen” troops to Washington, D.C., as part of a crackdown on crime, but Governor Scott declined, citing concerns about the appropriate use of resources. This follows a previous rejection of a request to have troops perform clerical work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Trump administration’s actions in the capital have drawn legal challenges.
Read the original article here
Vermont’s Republican Governor Scott refuses to send National Guard troops to DC, and it seems this decision has stirred up a mix of reactions. It’s a move that’s certainly got people talking, and the reasons behind it are likely complex. One of the immediate questions that pops up is about funding. Who’s picking up the tab for deploying the National Guard? Is it the state, or does the federal government step in to reimburse the states?
The answer, as it often is with these things, is a little complicated. Typically, when a Guardsman or Reservist is called up for federal duty, the funding comes from the federal government under what’s known as Title 10. However, if the Governor activates the Guard for state duty, that falls under Title 32, and the state shoulders the financial burden. Given the nature of the situation, with Trump’s involvement, there’s a real concern about how this might play out, especially in terms of whether the troops will even get paid. Some suggest this could be a deliberate strategy, where certain states might be left on the hook financially, potentially diminishing their military resources.
The political implications are, perhaps, even more significant. For states sending their National Guard troops, it’s being viewed by some as a loyalty test. The decision of each governor to send or withhold troops is seen as a statement of where they stand, whether they’re supporting democracy or veering toward something else. This timing, coming shortly after a summit, only adds to the heightened sense of importance surrounding the situation. In some circles, there’s a palpable relief that some Republican governors are pushing back, and some are taking this as a much-needed demonstration of sanity. It’s a refreshing surprise to see some leaders refuse to align with what is perceived as a dangerous escalation.
The fact that this is happening in Vermont is particularly interesting, given the state’s unique political landscape. Despite having a Republican governor, Vermont is generally known for being a more Democrat-leaning state. The politics lean towards libertarianism with a flavor of social democracy. This makes Governor Scott’s decision all the more noteworthy. His choice is probably a calculated one, given the political climate within the state itself.
The financial aspect is not to be ignored. If the National Guard is called up for federal duty, the costs are borne by taxpayers nationwide. This raises concerns about the potential siphoning of funds from blue states to support federal programs. There’s also the specter of what might happen if the federal government fails to pay, as has happened. This is especially troubling when considering the state is responsible for the salaries.
It’s worth noting that in this political climate, the situation could easily be manipulated, used for political maneuvering. The potential exists for creating a narrative that portrays governors who choose not to send troops as being anti-American or unsupportive. It’s important to consider that, as soon as the narrative spirals out of control, and this could potentially become damaging to the governors involved.
The independent parties have a history of splitting the vote, and perhaps even making Republicans win more often. Vermont is a state that holds a political debate that many would find very interesting; a debate between Libertarianism versus Social Democracy. The state’s political landscape is complex, with a mix of different ideologies. This makes the Republican governor’s decision to not support the escalation a little less of a surprise when the state itself has a very unique and complex political environment.
It’s also important to remember that the fiscal year’s turnover on October 1st adds a layer of complexity. There’s the risk of exceeding budgets or running into financial issues, particularly with the uncertainty surrounding this specific “emergency.” There are stories of previous administrations that called up the National Guard but then released them just before their federal benefits kicked in. This underlines the importance of how this situation could quickly evolve, and the necessity of clear financial planning for any deployment.