(The Daily Signal)—Texas Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Joaquin Castro and failed gubernatorial and Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke, are urging President Joe Biden to seize control of the Texas National Guard, which Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has mobilized to help secure the Texas border.
Abbott did so in the face of the deliberate and intentional inaction by the Biden administration to make sure the border stays open so millions of illegal aliens could continue to flood across from Mexico.
Under the circumstances, any such move by the president would be an abuse of the applicable law.
A number of federal statutes govern the National Guard, which is the modern equivalent of state militias and a reserve component of our military. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(a), the secretary of defense (and thus the president) is given the authority in “time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress, or when otherwise authorized by law” to order National Guard units to active duty.
But they cannot be called to active duty by the president “without the consent of the governor of the State.” If the governor consents, the unit called into federal service under Title 10 reports to the president as the commander in chief while in federal service.
State governors, however, like Abbott, remain the commanders in chief of their state National Guard units, such as the Texas National Guard, unless they have consented to the president’s call for those units to be in active federal service.
The only exception to the consent requirement is contained in subsection (f) and it only applies if National Guard units are needed for active duty for overseas service—such as when we were in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Thus, under this statute, without the consent of Abbott, Biden has no power to simply seize control of the Texas National Guard as he is being urged to do and order them to stand down, since we are not in a war and the Guard is not needed for service abroad.
Biden could go to the extreme by trying to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to take over the Texas National Guard. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to federalize the National Guard under certain narrow and exceptional circumstances. The last time it was invoked was by President George W. Bush to help quell the deadly widespread riots in 1992 in Los Angeles after the arrest and beating of Rodney King, when state authorities were unable to cope with the violence and mayhem.
Under 10 U.S.C. § 252, the president can “call into Federal service the militia of any State” when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Clearly, there is no insurrection going on in Texas as defined in that law.
Nor is Texas violating any court order issued in “the ordinary court of judicial proceedings.” The state has been placing barbed-wire fencing on state-owned and private property, and no court has ordered Texas to remove or cease installing that fencing.
The only thing that has happened is that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated—while the case between Texas and the federal government is on appeal—an injunction that prevented the feds from removing the fencing. But nothing prevents Texas from continuing to put in more fencing, even after it has been removed.
Biden would also be hard-pressed to legitimately use another part of the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 253, which allows a president to use a state militia (the National Guard) if an insurrection or domestic violence “hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States.”
It is Texas that is trying to ensure that federal laws are being enforced and complied with. And it is the Biden administration that is “hindering” the execution of the laws of the United States with its abject refusal to enforce our immigration laws, to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border, and its unlawful granting of mass parole to those aliens once they are in the United States.
If Biden tries to call forth the Texas National Guard, the most likely federal statute for him to try to use, according to a source familiar with National Guard operations, is 10 U.S.C. § 12406. This provision allows the president to “call into Federal service” the National Guard under one of three circumstances: an “invasion by a foreign nation”; “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States”; or the president’s inability “with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The fatuous argument that Biden would have to make is that Texas is engaged in a rebellion against the authority of the United States or some such other rubbish. But as already noted, there has been no rebellion by Texas and no court order of any kind finding that Texas is somehow violating federal law or refusing to comply with federal courts.
The third precondition obviously also does not apply. A claim that any of these preconditions have been met would be met with derision.
Instead of carrying out his duty as president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which includes our immigration laws, Biden has violated his oath of office and is acting like a bully to violate the law, threaten states like Texas that are faced with a desperate situation, and thwart the will of the people who want a secure border and the rising tide of illegal immigration stopped.
If the Biden administration would spend as much time fighting illegal immigration as it does fighting border states that are actually trying to do something about the problem, we might begin to see some progress. But don’t hold your breath.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected], and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
JD’s manually curated links for God-fearing MAGA patriots
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
BEN SHAPIRO!?!? Is he a SOROS plant?
HIAS and Mayorkas and Ben Shapiro?!?!
And of course, always the Soros OSF and Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation and the MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE?!
https : //www DOT brighteon DOT com/976fbfc1-cf52-4af1-a7cc-1cf00b81d45a
https : //www DOT zerohedge DOT com/political/meet-amy-pope-uns-human-trafficking-czar
A number of federal statutes govern the National Guard, which is the modern equivalent of state militias and a reserve component of our military”
No it is not … go check the equipment list see who owns the equipment and track down where the pay comes from to the soldiers – it’s not the State
Hey author there is more to nationalizing the troops than what you posted :
“Under 10 U.S.C. § 252, the president can “call into Federal service the militia of any State” when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
What about when they want to ? Gulf one and Gulf Two … no war was declared but off they went .
But they cannot be called to active duty by the president “without the consent of the governor of the State.”
Again you are wrong .. how do I know … In Gulf war ONE.. dukakis Mass Gov. said no I won’t give them up LOL they Nationalized them and off they went to the land of sand .
The bottom line they are FEDERAL TROOPS held in trust when allowed by the federal Gov. the equipment is federal their pay ( most of it ) is federal and they can be called up ANY TIME THE DOD WANTS TO.
THe author of this publication is woefully ignorant.