“We are a constitutional republic, and if I can’t question the blood and treasure that are allocated for our nation, then we have a problem.”

Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers (R-LD7) made that statement about Arizona’s Senate Bill SB 1495, known as the “Defend the Guard Act.” The bill “prohibits the National Guard of Arizona from being released from Arizona into active duty Combat unless Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken efficient Official action to explicitly call forward the National Guard of Arizona to execute the laws of the Union Repelling invasion or suppress an insurrection and requires the governor to take all necessary actions to comply with the prohibition.”

Senator Rogers vigorously advocated for SB 1495 during a meeting of the Arizona Senate’s Military Affairs and Border Security Committee (MABS) on Monday, February 17, 2025.

Reflecting on her initial efforts, she stated, “I first introduced Defend the Guard legislation in Arizona three years ago because I recognized that our country could not survive on an ideology of ‘invade the world, invite the world,’ conducted in violation of the United States Constitution.”

She further highlighted Arizona’s leadership in this movement: “The Arizona Senate was the first legislative chamber to pass it in the United States. And now the rest of the country is catching up, with identical bills being introduced in over 30 states this year.”

Emphasizing the bill’s constitutional foundation, she noted, “SB1495 will keep the Arizona National Guard out of undeclared foreign wars in obedience to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.” She further stressed the importance of focusing on local security concerns, asserting, “Our southern border is the most important national security interest our nation has.”

Rogers also underscored the growing support for the legislation within the federal government: “We now have a Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who supports this legislation. We now have a Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, herself an Army officer, who supports this legislation. We now have a Director of the National Counterterrorism Center who supports this legislation.”

Concluding her opening remarks, she emphasized the bill’s commitment to service members: “With SB1495, we will make good on our legal and moral obligations to our Arizona National Guardsmen by guaranteeing that before they put their boots on the ground in combat overseas, Congress will have put their names on the dotted line and have voted to send them there.”

However, Brigadier General John Conley, Director of Administrative Services at the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, spoke to oppose the measure. Conley testified that “The National Guard Bureau is against it. The National Guard Association of the United States is against it. All 54 commanding generals of the 54 states and territories are against it. The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of America is against it.”

Then, Rogers pushed back against the General for the next fifteen minutes in a tense exchange. She pressed the General for specific names, asking, “What are the names, titles, and ranks of the officials you spoke to who informed you that they would support defunding the National Guard in response to this bill?”

Conley failed to provide any names, instead making vague references to federal law and bureaucratic decisions. His argument rested on the claim that if Arizona exercised its constitutional right to restrict National Guard deployments, “funding would be taken away”—a claim Rogers quickly dismantled.

She argued, “Congress is the body which appropriates the budget, including funding for each state’s National Guard. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prohibits the executive from withholding appropriations designated by Congress. Do you agree that an action as drastic and politically controversial as defunding the Arizona National Guard would require an act of Congress?”

The General responded with a simple “Yes.”

When pressed on whether Congress would realistically vote to strip Arizona of its National Guard resources as retaliation for a policy disagreement, Conley attempted to deflect, but Rogers was prepared. She pointed out that Arizona’s congressional delegation—Republican and Democrat alike—would not allow such an overreach to go unanswered.

The discussion turned to whether the Department of Defense, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, has weighed in on the legislation. Conley admitted that his office had not contacted the Pentagon directly but speculated that “Secretary Hegseth is very well aware that 40% of his combat capability sits in the National Guard. He’s not going to hamstring the president’s peace-through-strength initiative.”

Rogers dismissed this as speculation: “To refuel aircraft who are not in direct combat is one thing. To engage in direct combat in an undeclared war that the United States Congress hasn’t declared is another. We have to rely on Secretary Hegseth’s last statement,” available here: https://youtu.be/f87pD5S-kpM?si=_zXtIWP2UYUIV-yl.

The General responded by pointing to ongoing operations involving National Guard troops:

“Right now, Secretary Hegseth has Arizona National Guard in the Sinai Peninsula, trying to keep peace between Israel and Egypt. Right now, Secretary Hegseth has National Guard members fighting ISIS in the Middle East. The National Guard was heavily involved in dropping bombs on the Houthis.”

Secretary Hegseth has only been in office for less than a month, meaning that the deployments mentioned by Conley occurred under the Biden administration.

A key point of contention was whether the bill would prohibit training overseas. Conley claimed that the legislation’s wording—prohibiting any duty that involves an “instrumentality of war”—could prevent Arizona’s 8,000 Guardsmen from participating in necessary training exercises. Rogers pushed back, calling this interpretation “disingenuous” and suggesting it undermined his credibility.

The heated exchange culminated in a constitutional debate over the legal basis for U.S. military involvement in Syria, where Biden had deployed thousands of National Guard troops.

Rogers pressed the General: “Can you explain the legal authority underpinning the United States war in Syria? There’s been no declaration of war, and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force does not apply to Syria.”

Conley responded by citing Congress’ constitutional power to provide for the common defense and raise an army, arguing that Congress’s ability to authorize military operations extends to deploying the National Guard in overseas conflicts.

State Senator Eva Burch (D-LD9) apologized to Conley for the vigorous questioning conducted by Rogers. In response, Rogers emphasized the importance of legislative oversight, asserting, “We are a constitutional republic, and if I can’t question the blood and treasure that are allocated for our nation, then we have a problem.”

The Arizona Senate now faces a critical decision: whether to pass the “Defend the Guard” legislation, potentially setting a national precedent—or to heed the warnings of military leaders who argue that restricting National Guard deployments could undermine national security.

Senator Wendy Rogers has received strong support from the Libertarian and the Green Parties on this measure.