On August 15, 2025, Governor Phil Scott of Vermont—who identifies as a moderate Republican—politely declined a request from the Pentagon to deploy “a few dozen” members of the Vermont National Guard to Washington, D.C. This request was part of President Trump’s federal takeover of D.C.’s law enforcement and a broader crime control initiative.WPTZ
This marks the second such denial in recent weeks; Governor Scott previously rejected a request to use the Guard for ICE-related duties, stating it did not meet his standards for appropriate use of military resources.VTDigger
According to Scott’s office, the Guard should be reserved for immediate emergencies or disasters, not politically charged domestic law enforcement actions. His stance reflects a view held by many Vermonters opposing the Guard’s use in this context.Vermont Public
Key Takeaways
- Governor Scott declined federal requests to deploy Vermont National Guard troops both to D.C. and for ICE support, citing concerns over proper military usage.
- He emphasized that such domestic enforcement—outside of crisis or disaster scenarios—was not an appropriate mission for the Guard.
- His decisions align with a broader perspective on maintaining civil–military norms and state autonomy.
Broader Implications
| Topic | Insight |
|---|---|
| Executive Power | This refusal underscores tension between federal aims to deploy military assets and state leaders preserving local control—central to federalism debates. |
| Precedent Matters | Other Governors like those of West Virginia and South Carolina complied, pointing to diverse state-level responses to federal requests.Wikipedia+15Scripps News+15https://www.wcax.com+15 |
| State Military Integrity | Scott’s position reaffirms a principle that the Guard should serve local security and emergencies—not politicized federal operations. |
| Vermont’s Political Character | Scott’s actions align with his centrist reputation—fiscally conservative, socially moderate—and reflect Vermont’s political norms.Wikipedia |
Neutral Reflection
Governor Scott’s refusal reinforces established guard norms and state authority, even amid powerful federal pressure. It highlights the ongoing balancing act between national directives and state leadership. The situation also raises important constitutional and governance questions about the appropriate use of state military forces within party-aligned or politicized contexts.
Leave feedback about this
You must be logged in to post a comment.