Key Takeaways
• Oklahoma’s governor criticized Texas for sending National Guard troops to Chicago.
• Kevin Stitt warned that “Oklahomans would lose their mind” if another state sent troops into Oklahoma.
• He said defending state rights is essential, even when he supports federal actions.
• Some governors have threatened to leave the National Governors Association over its silence.
State Rights Under Fire as Texas Sends Troops
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt took a rare public stand against a fellow Republican governor this week. He blasted Texas for sending National Guard troops to Chicago without Illinois’s approval. In doing so, he made it clear that he values state rights above politics, even while he backs federal efforts to restore order.
Why State Rights Matter in Guard Deployment
State rights mean each state gets to manage its own affairs unless the federal government steps in. Governors usually handle their own National Guard forces. When one governor orders troops into another state, it raises a big question: Who gets to decide? Stitt argues that respecting state rights keeps the balance of power fair.
Stitt’s Surprising Critique
In an interview with a major newspaper, Stitt said he was “surprised” by Governor Greg Abbott’s decision to send troops from Texas to Illinois. He noted that he and Abbott once sued the Biden administration over vaccine and mask rules for soldiers. Now, he sees a similar overstep by Abbott.
• He backed federal action to protect ICE agents and fight crime in cities.
• Yet he worries that a future president from another party could use that same power differently.
• He said President Trump should have first federalized the Texas troops in Illinois.
Stitt pointed out that if Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sent troops into Oklahoma, “Oklahomans would lose their mind.” He used that image to stress how much state leaders value their own authority.
Political Reactions and Tensions
After Abbott’s move, Illinois Governor Pritzker and California Governor Gavin Newsom threatened to quit the National Governors Association. They said the 100-year-old group must oppose the Texas deployment. So far, the association has stayed silent. Stitt defended its stance. He said the NGA is “an educational organization” and should not wade into political fights.
• Pritzker called for fellow governors, both Democrats and Republicans, to speak out.
• Newsom backed Pritzker and warned the NGA could lose members.
• Stitt said it’s not the NGA’s job to pick sides.
A Wider Debate on Federal Power
This clash taps into a long-standing debate about federal power versus state control. On one side, supporters of federal action say national safety can require quick, centralized decisions. On the other, advocates of state rights argue that local leaders best understand their own needs.
Stitt sees a risk in letting one governor deploy troops to another state without consent. He worries that it could become a precedent. In his view, today’s move against rising crime might become tomorrow’s tool for political gain.
“He’s protecting law and order,” Stitt said of President Trump’s intent, “but we have to guard our own state rights.”
Football Weekend Diplomacy
Interestingly, Stitt and Abbott will both attend the University of Oklahoma vs. University of Texas football game this weekend. Even after these comments, Stitt said they had not discussed the troop deployment. He hopes personal ties and shared backgrounds will smooth over the disagreement.
What Could Happen Next
With tensions rising, here are a few possibilities:
• The National Governors Association might issue a statement, breaking its silence.
• More governors could join Pritzker and Newsom in threatening to quit the group.
• Federal leaders might step in to clarify rules on interstate deployment.
• Legal challenges could arise if a governor tries to send troops again without consent.
The coming weeks will show whether this debate changes how states work together on security and law enforcement. It will also test the strength of state rights in a deeply divided political climate.
Balancing Law and Local Control
This disagreement shows how tricky it is to balance federal power and state rights. On one hand, states need to protect their citizens from threats that cross borders. On the other, they must respect each other’s authority.
For now, Stitt has made his point clear. He supports strong action against crime. Yet he stands firm on defending state rights, even against allies. He hopes other governors will think twice before sending troops into another state.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Governor Stitt upset about the troop deployment?
He believes sending National Guard troops into another state without approval breaks the principle of state rights and could set a risky precedent.
What are state rights?
State rights refer to the powers and responsibilities that U.S. states hold independently from the federal government, especially in matters like public safety and National Guard control.
How have other governors reacted to the deployment?
Illinois Governor Pritzker and California Governor Newsom have threatened to leave the National Governors Association unless it opposes the move. Many other governors are watching closely.
What might happen next in this dispute?
Governors may demand the association speak out, federal rules on interstate deployment could change, or legal battles could follow if another governor tries a similar move.