/ /

H.355 and the Question Vermonters Are Asking Right Now

In recent weeks, given my sponsorship of H. 355, I’ve heard from Vermonters across the political spectrum who are paying closer attention to how, when, and why our National Guard is deployed. That attention has sharpened following the recent deployment of the Vermont National Guard to Puerto Rico and the broader geopolitical instability in the region, including the ongoing situation in Venezuela.

The question I am hearing most often is a simple one:

Do states, and the people who live in them, have any meaningful role when decisions are made that place National Guard members in harm’s way?

H.355 exists to create space for that question to be discussed openly, carefully, and with public input.

This bill is not about obstructing federal authority, refusing lawful orders, or injecting Vermont into foreign policy debates. It is about whether there are responsible, transparent checks available to us before our Guard is federalized in ways that may bypass Congress entirely. Importantly, we’re a bit late in discussing the benefits of discussing this bill, but better late than never.

What H.355 Actually Does

H.355 is intentionally narrow. It asks the Governor of Vermont to do three things when a steps are taken by the President to federalize the Vermont National Guard:

  1. Examine whether that request complies with the U.S. Constitution, specifically Congress’s responsibility under Article I to authorize war.

  2. If the Governor determines that the request is constitutionally questionable, H. 355 requires that reasonable steps are taken to convey that determination to the President.

  3. Inform the Vermont Legislature when those steps have been taken, so that elected representatives and the public are aware that concerns were raised.

That is the entirety of the mechanism. There is no automatic refusal. There is no state veto. There is no declaration of independence from federal authority.

H.355 is a process bill. It creates documentation, communication, and transparency where there is currently very little.

What H.355 Does Not Do

Because public discussion has already begun to drift into exaggeration, it is equally important to be explicit about what this bill does not do.

H.355 does not:

  • Prevent the federal government from federalizing the National Guard

  • Block deployments ordered under clear constitutional authority

  • Interfere with emergency response, disaster relief, or domestic missions

  • Require the Legislature to approve or deny deployments

  • Create a confrontation between Vermont and the Pentagon

It does not ask the Governor to disobey federal law. It, very simply, asks the Governor to examine whether federal law has been followed.

That distinction matters, as you are likely already hearing discussion about what is and what is not constitutional as we collectively discuss recent actions.

How We Arrived to this Point

For nearly eight decades, Congress has avoided issuing formal declarations of war. Instead, it has relied on broad, open-ended Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that shift decision-making power almost entirely to the Executive Branch.

This is not a partisan observation. It is a structural one that is easily verified by a quick review of deployments for the past 50 years.

As a result, National Guard members now comprise a substantial portion of overseas deployments, often in conflicts that no sitting member of Congress has ever voted on.

Whether one supports or opposes those deployments, the process itself raises legitimate democratic questions. H.355 does not answer those questions for Vermonters. It creates a mechanism for asking them responsibly.

State Authority and Federal Responsibility

Under our constitutional system, National Guard members occupy a unique position. They serve both the state and the nation. That dual status is not symbolic; it is also structural and deliberate.

Until federalized, the Guard remains under state authority. During that window, governors have obligations, including an obligation to ensure that requests are lawful.

H.355 does not attempt to resolve unsettled constitutional questions. It simply acknowledges that such questions exist and that raising them through formal channels is appropriate, not insubordinate.

Why Committee Discussion and Testimony Matter

The most important next step for H.355 is not a floor vote. It is committee discussion.

The House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs is the currently the assigned and appropriate venue for:

  • Legal scholars to weigh in on constitutional interpretation

  • Guard members and veterans to speak to lived experience

  • Executive branch officials to explain current processes

  • Vermonters to express expectations around transparency and accountability

Robust testimony strengthens legislation. Avoiding discussion weakens public trust.

Ways to Get Involved Right Now

If you believe this question deserves careful public consideration, there are concrete ways to engage:

Engagement does not require consensus. It requires participation.

Closing Thought

H.355 does not presume answers. It insists on questions.

At a moment when decisions about war, peace, and military deployment increasingly occur far from public view, asking how constitutional checks are functioning is neither radical nor reckless. It is responsible.

If Vermont can contribute to restoring transparency and accountability through thoughtful process, we should be willing to examine that opportunity together.

That is what H.355 offers.