Follow us on social

Virginia House passes Defend the Guard 99-0

Virginia House passes Defend the Guard 99-0

Measure would keep National Guard from fighting in undeclared federal wars

Reporting | QiOSK

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill on Tuesday that bars the deployment of Virginia’s National Guard into active combat in a conflict that Congress has not explicitly authorized.

“I understand that war is sometimes necessary, but I expect Congress to display an ounce of the courage they expect out of the men and women they send overseas to fight those wars by fulfilling their constitutional obligation to declare war,” Del. Nicholas Freitas (R-62), a veteran and a primary sponsor of the bill, told RS.

The Virginia Senate will vote on the measure before sending it to Governor Youngkin’s desk for consideration. Del. Freitas said he didn’t know whether the bill would pass in the Senate but that he and other supporters have “put it on the best possible footing with strong bipartisan, even unanimous support.”

"Today is an incredible victory for both National Guardsmen and our Constitution,” said retired Sgt. Dan McKnight, chairman of Bring Our Troops Home, a “group of veterans and civilians on a mission to end the Forever Wars & restore the U.S. Constitution.” “H.B. 2193 does not interfere with Title 32 deployments or overseas training missions. Its only requirement is that before the Virginia National Guard goes into combat, Congress has to do its job and vote. I'm incredibly proud to see my organization's bill receive such overwhelming support in the Old Dominion.”

There is a national push for similar legislation, commonly referred to as the Defend the Guard Act, to be passed by other state houses across the country. Hunter DeRensis, Communications Director at Bring Our Troops Home, told RS that “the bill will be introduced in 27 states this year.”

Kentucky State Rep. T.J. Roberts (R-66) introduced a version in January this year, which is now in committee. The Arizona State Senate will likely pass it for a third time in 2025, as the State House voted it down twice prior. A Defend the Guard bill passed the New Hampshire State House in 2024, but the State Senate decided to “quiet kill” the legislation by not voting on it at all. The State House introduced a new bill for the 2025 session. The Republican Party of Maine encoded Defend the Guard language into its state platform, and a bipartisan group of state representatives there introduced a new bill for the 2025 session.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth endorsed Defend the Guard legislation when it was presented in New Hampshire last year. “To me, it makes a lot of sense. I spent most of my career as a National Guardsman, deployed multiple times with the National Guard to foreign wars,” said Hegseth in 2024. “We got used to the idea that state National Guard are part of expeditionary forces, which is not traditionally the use of a National Guard.”

He continued: “This is New Hampshire saying we don’t trust how the federal government is going to use our troops, so we’re willing to commit them when the American people, through their elected branch in Congress, commits those troops to a foreign war, then you can. I love this idea.”

“An American-first foreign policy is about understanding that issues within our own borders should be prioritized,” said Del. Freitas. “In so far as foreign military operations are necessary, there should be clear and compelling reasons and adherence to the constitution.”


Top Photo: Pennsylvania National Guard Soldiers bound for Africa mission, Dec. 2023. (photo by Pennsylvania National Guard )
Pennsylvania National Guard Soldiers bound for Africa mission, Dec. 2023. (photo by Pennsylvania National Guard )
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.