At the direction of a political donor, the state of South Dakota is deploying National Guard troops to the border in South Texas. This is a bad idea, and raises legal concerns.
As reported by multiple outlets, Tennessee billionaire Willis Johnson sent South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem $1 million to pay for the deployment, telling Politico, “I’m trying to help out the governor and help America.”
But Johnson’s action here, and any endorsement of it by Noem or Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, will do just the opposite, because it violates longstanding precedents related to military oversight and democracy.
First, there’s the legal question.
The federal government usually pays for National Guard deployments to other states. When non-federalized troops are sent from one state to another, the requesting state pays for it, under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, or EMAC. According to EMAC’s website, “any expense, except worker’s compensation costs, incurred while performing an EMAC mission is reimbursable provided that the expense is reasonable, mission-related, incurred during the conduct of the mission, and can be documented.”
According to reporting from NPR, Republican governors from Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska and Iowa have all committed to sending law enforcement officers to the border. Texas will be on the hook to pay for those deployments. The fact that Texas isn’t funding the South Dakota cadre makes it different, and potentially problematic legally, though that’s a point that will likely suffer much debate in coming weeks.
The larger point here is about precedent and wisdom. It’s patently foolish to cede operational control of military assets to political donors. The idea that a private citizen can direct military units with his checkbook violates principles of self-governance. It converts soldiers into private security contractors at best, mercenaries at worst. It moves the country away from democracy toward oligarchy. It gives rise to something policy analysts call “privilege violence” in which security becomes a commodity rather than a right. If a donor can decide that the border is a military priority for South Dakota, could he make a similar decision about deploying troops to Mount Rushmore? The U.S. Capitol? His beach house during vacation?
We asked Abbott’s office whether he shares our concern about privately funded military action. As of press time, there was no reply.
We’re not enthusiastic about national guard troops leaving their home states without a federal mission, but we’re even more troubled by the idea of letting a private citizen fund that action.
Throughout history, the experience of weaker democracies has made this lesson clear: When democratically elected, civilian government loses a monopoly on military force, things get out of hand.
The factor voters should be considering here is not about the wisdom of privately funded military action. That, obviously, should be condemned. The real question at play here is how far Abbott will go to protect his right flank between now and next year’s election.
