The outgoing chief of the National Guard is doubling down on his recent criticisms of the service component’s long-troubled security mission on the US-Mexico border, saying it’s a detriment to the Guard’s ability to wage war.
“The reason the Guard exists is to fight and win our nation’s wars, period,” Gen. Daniel Hokanson, the National Guard’s top officer, said in an interview with Military.com on Wednesday. “We can do stuff along the southwest border. But at the end of the day, that is [demands] on individuals not related to their military mission set.”
For decades, the National Guard has had some level of presence on the southwest border. But that mission was supercharged in Texas as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s ongoing Operation Lone Star, which surged that state’s soldiers to combat illegal immigration in 2021. At its peak, 10,000 Guardsmen were part of the operation, which is in addition to a federal border mission of some 2,500 Guardsmen.
Hokanson’s comments come after remarks to lawmakers on Capitol Hill in June in which he highlighted his concerns with the mission interfering with the Guard’s training requirements — already a significant obligation for units made up of mostly part-timers who have to maintain the same qualifications as their active-duty counterparts.
“There is no military training value for what we do,” he told lawmakers, referencing border missions and adding that the Guard’s time would be better spent preparing for war and being available to respond to state emergencies.
For Hokanson, the issue is twofold. A border mission, even a shorter one that can span about a month, consumes a significant chunk of a part-time Guardsman’s duty time in a given year. The border mission is mostly static security and surveillance, but troops typically are not allowed to interact directly with migrants or suspected smugglers. He also argues it adds yet another strain on the relationship between Guardsmen and their lives back home.
“If you’re deployed down on the southwest border, to your family or your employer, it’s the same as you being in Kuwait, or Iraq, or somewhere else overseas, because you’re away from your family or away from your employer,” Hokanson said.
But equally important, he stressed, is that the sprawling border mission is just another thing on troops’ plates as they’re being overworked, a significant concern across the military’s senior leadership. Service members are away from home more now than during the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That issue has been linked to suicides in the services. It also has been contributing to retention issues that have plagued the Army National Guard. In 2023, the Army Guard sought to retain 37,000 troops whose contracts were ending that year; it hit only 63% of the goal. By contrast, the Army Guard reached nearly 95% of its recruiting goal of 26,000 new soldiers.
“Our Guardsmen are going to do their best. They’re gonna do the job the best they can; they’re going to improve the position that they’re in for the next person,” Hokanson said. “But at what cost?”
The Army Guard nearly hitting its recruiting goal and failing on retention is the complete inverse of the active-duty Army — which is struggling to recruit but having no issue retaining talent.
The high cadence of missions and long-term training events is worsened by the service’s being spread thin bolstering NATO’s front line amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, deterring Beijing’s expansionist goals in the Pacific, and running missions that are the remnants of the Global War on Terror in Africa and the Middle East — with the National Guard making up the bulk of the combat power in those legacy missions. At any given time, some 20,000 Guardsmen are deployed abroad, according to service component data.
“We are looking at where we can take things off soldiers’ plates,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth told Military.com in an October interview.
On top of those obligations abroad, the Guard also deploys in response to natural disasters — missions that are expected to become even more frequent as climate change’s impact on the frequency and intensity of storms and other natural disasters is expected to lead to increasing demands on Guardsmen. Those missions are often short, unintrusive of a unit’s training schedule, and more applicable to the Guard’s capabilities.
At least a dozen Republican governors, including those in states hundreds of miles from the border, have funneled troops onto state-backed missions to the border. Those missions range from minor deployments with only a handful of soldiers for a few weeks to sprawling deployments of entire units for a year. Some of those missions have come amid political campaigns.
South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem deployed 50 troops to the border backed by a $1 million donation from billionaire GOP megadonor Willis Johnson. The move sparked numerous questions on the ethics and legality of privately funding National Guard operations — and came as Noem was boosting her national profile.
Governors using Guardsmen as political tools has been a concern. The National Guard has frequently been caught in the middle between state politicians and federal officials.
“We can’t help what elected officials or other officials say,” Hokanson said. “All we can focus on is what we’re going to do to make sure we’re doing the right thing.”
Hokanson is set to retire August 1, though his successor has not been picked yet.
