Command Cohesion and Sovereign Fracture: Evaluating Institutional Resilience During Domestic Constitutional Crises

Full report

On this page

Executive Summary

The transition of domestic political crises into security-sector fragmentation represents a paramount concern for continuity of government and civil-military relations contingency planning. In scenarios characterized by multi-sided sovereignty crises—where competing civilian authorities issue conflicting legal obligations to U.S. security institutions—the resilience of the security apparatus is tested against the risk of organizational fracture. However, the U.S. national security architecture possesses deep structural, legal, and logistical impediments to the unilateral seizure of political power or the sustained operation of rogue command elements. Security fragmentation is treated in comparative literature as qualitatively more significant than mass uprisings; it can determine whether a state transitions peacefully or collapses into civil conflict. Yet, the U.S. security apparatus is not a single organization capable of switching sides simultaneously. Federal armed forces, Guard components, federal law enforcement, state police, and thousands of local agencies have separate authorities. A partial fracture within this system produces isolation of defectors rather than a transfer of sovereignty. Civilian logistics, appropriations, command-and-control legitimacy, and professional norms ensure that security-sector fragmentation in the United States overwhelmingly tends toward military neutrality, bureaucratic gridlock, or judicial clarification rather than the overthrow of the state.

Part I: Legal Architecture and Jurisdictional Mapping of the Security Sector

The U.S. security apparatus is a highly federated system characterized by overlapping jurisdictions, distinct funding streams, and segmented command-and-control (C2) authorities. This decentralized structure forms the first major barrier to any synchronized institutional defection or coup.

The foundational limitation on active-duty military forces operating within the domestic sphere is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385). The PCA criminalizes the willful use of any part of the Army or the Air Force to execute domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress, establishing a profound presumption against military involvement in civilian law enforcement1. By virtue of Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5525.5 and DoDD 3025.18, this restriction applies equally to the Navy and Marine Corps3. Under standard Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) doctrine, Title 10 forces may provide logistical, medical, and engineering assistance, but are strictly prohibited from conducting civilian arrests, searches, or direct law enforcement functions5.

The primary statutory exception to the PCA is the Insurrection Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255. This Act empowers the President to deploy federal military forces and to federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, or unlawful combinations that render the enforcement of federal law impracticable or deprive citizens of their constitutional rights7. Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis highlights that while the Insurrection Act provides sweeping authority, its historical invocation for domestic military intervention has been highly exceptional1. Recent legal scholarship, including extensive proposals from the Brennan Center for Justice, has called for legislative reform to narrow the Act's broad criteria, arguing that the archaic language could be exploited by a motivated executive to authorize domestic deployments under legally ambiguous conditions8. A secondary, narrower exception exists under the "Emergency Authority" embedded in DoDD 3025.18, which permits local federal military commanders to take immediate, temporary action in domestic crises to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property when civilian authorities are entirely incapacitated3.

The National Guard occupies a uniquely complex tri-status legal position, making it a critical pivot point in any federal-state jurisdictional conflict. First, under State Active Duty (SAD), Guard personnel are commanded by their state governor, funded by state appropriations, and are entirely exempt from the PCA, allowing them to conduct routine law enforcement and disaster response duties11. Second, under Title 32 U.S.C., Guard members remain under gubernatorial command but are federally funded for authorized training or support missions, maintaining their exemption from the PCA11. Finally, under Title 10 U.S.C., Guard units can be federalized, placing them directly under the command of the President and subjecting them strictly to the restrictions of the PCA, unless invoked in conjunction with the Insurrection Act via 10 U.S.C. § 1240611. To mitigate C2 friction during overlapping domestic responses, the Department of Defense relies heavily on the Dual-Status Commander (DSC) arrangement (under 32 U.S.C. § 315 and § 325), wherein a single commissioned officer holds simultaneous state and federal commissions15. While effective during cooperative disasters, the DSC structure is exceptionally vulnerable to paralysis if the federal executive and a state governor issue fundamentally contradictory directives.

Federal and state law enforcement agencies operate under completely distinct statutory authorities. The United States Coast Guard (USCG), established under 14 U.S.C., is a military service operating under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, possessing explicit federal law enforcement authority (14 U.S.C. § 89\) and a blanket exemption from the PCA18. During wartime, or at the direction of the President, the Coast Guard can be transferred to the Department of the Navy18. Other federal law enforcement agencies can circumvent military limitations during crises by utilizing Special Deputization (e.g., 28 CFR 0.112 via the U.S. Marshals Service) to temporarily grant federal law enforcement authority to local, state, or other federal personnel without triggering the PCA21.

At the state level, governors aggregate security forces through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), a congressionally ratified interstate mutual aid agreement (P.L. 104-321)22. EMAC provides the operational and legal framework for states to share National Guard personnel (operating in Title 32 or SAD status), state police, and emergency responders, addressing mission requests, reimbursement, liability, and indemnification24. In a severe sovereignty crisis, the EMAC system could theoretically be weaponized by a coalition of allied governors to amass state-controlled security forces in defiance of federal directives, creating a highly dangerous multi-sided security dilemma.

Part II: The Lawful Order Doctrine, Subordinate Liability, and UCMJ Dynamics

In any constitutional crisis, the cohesion of the military is ultimately tested at the level of the individual service member and commander, relying on the structural mechanisms of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ dictates the boundaries of obedience, but its application during a sovereignty crisis exposes severe vulnerabilities in defining a "lawful order."

Under UCMJ Articles 90, 91, and 92, military personnel have a strict legal duty to obey the lawful orders of superior commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, and general regulations27. The Manual for Courts-Martial stipulates that an order is legally presumed to be lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, federal statutes, international law, or if it patently exceeds the authority of the issuing official28. The presumption of lawfulness creates a significant burden on any subordinate considering disobedience.

Simultaneously, military personnel carry a legal and moral duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders. This principle was cemented by the Supreme Court in Little v. Barreme (1804), which established that a military officer is not shielded from personal liability for executing an illegal command, even if that command is issued directly by the President of the United States29. The standard for disobedience was subsequently refined during the Vietnam War in United States v. Calley, wherein the Court of Military Appeals ruled that obedience to superior orders is not a valid defense if the order is one that a "man of ordinary sense and understanding" would recognize as fundamentally unlawful28. However, mere political, ethical, or personal disagreement with an operational directive does not render the order unlawful; in United States v. New, the courts upheld a conviction for a soldier who refused an order to wear United Nations insignia, ruling the order came from a competent authority and related directly to the military mission28.

This legal tightrope has been significantly disrupted by the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States. The Court ruled that a former President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions falling within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and at least presumptive immunity for all official acts34. From a civil-military perspective, this creates a profound asymmetry in accountability. Should a President issue an order of highly dubious constitutionality—such as directing the military to seize election infrastructure or suppress political opposition—the President operates behind a shield of criminal immunity. However, the military subordinate tasked with executing the order does not inherit this immunity and remains subject to criminal liability under both the UCMJ and civilian law36.

Furthermore, when the executive branch issues an order supported by formal legal memoranda from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), it imparts a "gloss of legality" to the directive38. When such an order filters down to Combatant Commanders, the role of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) becomes critical. SJAs are tasked with advising commanders on domestic operational law and legal constraints under DSCA16. In a sovereignty crisis, competing civilian factions may produce contradictory but facially credible legal justifications. Military commanders and their SJAs, lacking the jurisprudential authority to act as a constitutional court, are forced into an untenable dilemma: execute an order that may later result in personal criminal prosecution by a successor administration, or refuse the order and risk immediate charges of mutiny and insubordination under Article 9228.

Part III: Civil-Military Relations Theory and Institutional Resistance

The assumption that security-sector fragmentation naturally precipitates a military coup represents a fundamental misunderstanding of American civil-military relations. Modern theoretical frameworks demonstrate that institutional resistance in the United States manifests through bureaucratic friction and paralysis, rather than armed rebellion.

Samuel Huntington's classic theory of "objective civilian control" posits that a highly professionalized military will remain politically neutral and subordinate to civilian authority, provided that civilian leaders grant the military autonomy in the tactical management of violence41. Alternatively, Morris Janowitz argued that military stability requires deep social integration with the civilian populace, ensuring the military reflects the democratic values of the society it serves44. In the post-Cold War era, Peter Feaver advanced "Agency Theory," modeling civil-military relations as a principal-agent problem. The civilian principal delegates authority to the military agent, which then calculates whether to obey or "shirk" based on the perceived costs of monitoring and the likelihood of punishment41.

In a constitutional crisis, the identity of the lawful "principal" is the precise matter in dispute. Risa Brooks notes that in the modern era, the Huntingtonian norms intended to keep the military out of politics can sometimes inadvertently enable partisan behavior or erode practical civilian control, creating paradoxes of professionalism47. When confronted with orders they oppose or deem strategically disastrous, U.S. military leaders do not resort to coercive power or coups. Instead, military dissent takes the form of sophisticated bureaucratic resistance: slow-rolling the implementation of orders, demanding exhaustive written clarification, leaking internal debates to the press to mobilize civilian allies, appealing directly to congressional oversight committees, or ultimately submitting senior-command resignations49.

The professional norms of the U.S. officer corps act as an overwhelming constraint against political usurpation. Peer pressure among professional officers dictates that assuming governing responsibility is anathema to the military's institutional identity48. The absence of unified political objectives among the general officer ranks means that any faction attempting to unilaterally seize power would face immediate, widespread internal resistance. Thus, when the chain of command fractures, the default posture of the military institution is to retreat into neutrality and demand that the civilian political and judicial processes resolve the sovereignty dispute.

Part IV: Administrative and Logistical Anchors as Failure Mechanisms

The most profound impediment to a military coup or sustained organizational fragmentation in the United States is the absolute dependency of the armed forces on centralized, civilian-controlled administrative and logistical networks. The U.S. military is fundamentally incapable of sustaining unilateral, rogue operations. A partial command fracture isolates defectors because they immediately lose access to their operational lifeblood.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) represents a critical continuity requirement. DFAS is a massive, civilian-managed agency responsible for processing the pay, tax withholdings, and travel vouchers for all Department of Defense military and civilian personnel, as well as major DoD contractors and retirees52. Military cohesion is deeply tied to continuous payroll, dependent benefits, and retirement crediting52. Should a military commander defect from the recognized federal authority, the civilian-controlled DFAS—acting under the direction of the recognized Secretary of Defense or the Treasury—can instantaneously suspend payroll to that unit's personnel. The prospect of troops conducting domestic operations without pay, without healthcare coverage for their families, and with their pensions frozen is a near-absolute failure mechanism for any sustained defection.

Equally constraining is the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the military's reliance on the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). The modern U.S. Army cannot move or sustain itself without the DLA, which manages the global supply chain for fuel, medical supplies, and critical repair parts55. Under LOGCAP, the military contracts out fundamental base operations, food service, transportation, and engineering support to private civilian entities, such as KBR and Fluor57. These civilian contractors are bound by stringent federal acquisition laws and rely entirely on lawful congressional appropriations. They will not provide services to a fractured military command that lacks recognized contracting authority and guaranteed treasury disbursements. A rogue combat brigade operating domestically would be immobilized within days due to a lack of fuel, maintenance support, and logistical sustainment. Without unified civilian appropriations, the military machine grinds to a rapid halt.

Part V: Scenario Branches and Institutional Responses

To thoroughly understand command cohesion and institutional resilience, we must construct and analyze specific branches of a hypothetical constitutional crisis where portions of U.S. security institutions receive conflicting legal obligations.

Branch 1: Isolated Refusals

In this scenario, individual commanders or specific tactical units refuse orders to deploy domestically, citing UCMJ Article 92 and claiming the orders are manifestly unlawful.Analysis: The result is the swift dismissal and replacement of officials, leading to the restoration of unified lawful command. Due to the dispersed nature of U.S. command authority, isolated refusals do not generate a critical mass capable of threatening the state. The defecting commanders are immediately relieved of command by their superiors, and military police or federal law enforcement intervene to secure the unit.Failure Pathway: The refusal fails to trigger broader fragmentation because peer pressure among professional officers heavily favors obedience to the chain of command unless the order is universally recognized as egregious (e.g., an order to fire on unarmed crowds). The logistical and payroll pipelines remain under unified federal control, isolating the defectors entirely.

Branch 2: Jurisdictional Disagreements (Guard vs. Federal)

In this scenario, a state governor utilizes the National Guard in SAD or Title 32 status to secure a disputed objective (e.g., closing state borders, securing election facilities). Concurrently, the President orders federal active-duty forces to assume control of the same objective, invoking the Insurrection Act to federalize the state's Guard forces. Analysis: The result is intensive judicial intervention or a negotiated political settlement. If the governor refuses to yield, the military faces a direct conflict between Title 10 and state authorities. Historically, the federalization mechanism acts as a trump card. In the 1957 Little Rock integration crisis, Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to block federal desegregation orders; President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, federalizing the Arkansas Guard under Title 10, instantly stripping the Governor of command and forcing the Guard to execute federal policy60. Failure Pathway: If a Dual-Status Commander is in place, the conflicting orders paralyze the command node, similar to the C2 friction experienced during the Joint Task Force Los Angeles response to the 1992 riots63. The DoD will likely strip the DSC of their Title 10 authority, effectively bifurcating the command. The federal government can then sever Title 32 funding, forcing the state to shoulder the enormous financial burden of maintaining the Guard on State Active Duty. This rapid financial drain typically forces the state toward a political settlement.

Branch 3: Senior-Command Resignations

In this scenario, in response to orders perceived as highly politicized or legally dubious, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and major combatant commanders submit their resignations in protest. Analysis: The result is military neutrality accompanied by immense political pressure on the civilian executive. Mass resignations strip the "gloss of legality" from the civilian directive. While the civilian authority can technically promote loyalists into the vacated positions, the bureaucratic friction created by the loss of the senior echelon paralyzes operational execution and signals profound institutional alarm49. Failure Pathway: This does not lead to a coup, as the resigning officers voluntarily remove themselves from the chain of command, explicitly refusing to assume governing responsibility. It forces the crisis back into the civilian political arena, triggering immediate congressional action and public backlash.

Branch 4: Widespread Uncertainty Over Civilian Authority

In this scenario, a deeply contested election or a disputed constitutional mechanism (e.g., a 25th Amendment crisis) results in two distinct individuals claiming the Presidency. Both claimants issue conflicting orders to the Department of Defense. Analysis: The result is strict military neutrality pending judicial or congressional clarification. The military apparatus is culturally and structurally incapable of acting as the arbiter of presidential elections. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Combatant Commanders will jointly agree to "stand fast," issuing orders to all units to remain in garrison, secure sensitive installations, and execute only pre-existing overseas contingency operations. Failure Pathway: The military relies heavily on its SJAs to analyze the lawful authority of orders16. When the legal basis of the Presidency itself is contested, SJAs will advise commanders that acting risks severe criminal liability. Furthermore, logistics and payroll continuity require authorized treasury disbursements; competing civilian claimants cannot process federal budgets, effectively freezing the administrative machinery. The military waits in a state of suspended animation for the Supreme Court or Congress to designate the lawful principal.

Branch 5: True Organizational Fragmentation

In this scenario, a multi-sided sovereignty crisis successfully fractures the armed forces. Significant portions of federal law enforcement, allied governors utilizing the EMAC framework to aggregate Guard forces, and splintered federal military units align with competing political factions. Analysis: The result is sustained competing chains of command that rapidly degrade into logistical starvation, eventually culminating in a negotiated political settlement, judicial resolution, or low-intensity civil conflict. Failure Pathway: A true military overthrow is practically impossible because no single faction can seize the highly dispersed administrative apparatus of the U.S. government. A splinter faction of the federal military would immediately lose access to DFAS (payroll) and DLA/LOGCAP (contractor logistics)52. Civilian contractors would evacuate or cease operations under the legal uncertainty. Peer pressure and the absence of unified political objectives among the officer corps would result in massive desertions. The fragmented units would rapidly devolve into isolated, localized militias unable to project power, rather than a unified force capable of overthrowing the constitutional order.

Part VI: Historical Comparisons, Transferability Limitations, and Judicial Boundaries

Comparative political science frequently attempts to map foreign coup dynamics onto the United States. However, historical comparisons reveal explicit transferability limitations based on the composition and culture of the U.S. military.

In the 1961 Algiers Putsch, French generals in Algeria attempted a coup against President Charles de Gaulle to halt Algerian independence. The coup collapsed rapidly because de Gaulle bypassed the rogue generals, using radio broadcasts to appeal directly to the conscript soldiers. The conscripts, possessing different political loyalties and lacking the careerist investments of the professional officer corps, refused to obey the putschists65. Conversely, during the 1981 Spanish Coup Attempt, military officers seized the Spanish parliament. King Juan Carlos I, utilizing his absolute constitutional legitimacy, appeared on national television in military uniform and ordered the armed forces to stand down. The coup leaders found themselves isolated as unit commanders adhered to the King's lawful authority68.

Applying these foreign dynamics to the United States highlights severe limitations:

• Conscript vs. Volunteer: Unlike the 1961 French military, the U.S. utilizes an All-Volunteer Force. Professionalization aligns the enlisted force closer to the institutional norms of the officer corps. While this makes a rank-and-file rebellion against rogue officers less likely, it simultaneously increases the entire force's adherence to constitutional civilian control and bureaucratic procedures41.
• Dispersed Authority vs. Centralization: Foreign coups often succeed by seizing the capital's broadcast centers, the presidential palace, and the centralized defense ministry. The U.S. system's profound federalism, the global dispersion of Combatant Commands, and the devolution of law enforcement (local police, state guard, federal agencies) mean that physical seizure of Washington D.C. does not equate to administrative control of the country or its military assets70.

Furthermore, the U.S. judiciary places strict limits on its intervention in military affairs. In Gilligan v. Morgan (1973), addressing the aftermath of the Kent State shootings, the Supreme Court ruled that evaluating the training, weaponry, and operational orders of the National Guard constitutes a non-justiciable political question reserved for the executive and legislative branches72. While the courts will steadfastly refuse to establish rules of engagement or oversee military deployments, they remain the ultimate arbiter of who holds the lawful civilian office. During a sovereignty crisis, the military relies entirely on the judiciary to resolve the civilian political dispute, allowing the chain of command to re-anchor to a judicially recognized constitutional authority.

Part VII: Intelligence Judgments, Indicators, and Collection Gaps

To support U.S. national-security contingency planning, analysts must track indicators of institutional strain without identifying individual units or exploitable command nodes.

Measurable Indicators of Imminent Command Fracture

• Legal and Doctrinal Dissonance: The publication of conflicting Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) guidance across different Combatant Commands, Service Branches, or Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) regarding the legality of specific domestic operations or the application of the PCA.
• Administrative Severance and Mutual-Aid Weaponization: Widespread invocation of the EMAC system by allied governors specifically to aggregate security forces across state lines absent a natural disaster or traditional emergency22.
• Logistical Anomalies: States aggressively stockpiling Title 32 funding or attempting to circumvent DLA supply chains by utilizing state emergency funds to secure independent civilian logistical contracts for Guard units.
• Public Dissent: An abnormal, sustained spike in coordinated op-eds, open letters, or public statements by recently retired general and flag officers (often acting as surrogates for active-duty sentiment) warning against the politicization of the military or debating the parameters of lawful orders76.

Confidence Judgments

• High Confidence: An attempted unilateral deployment of active-duty forces for domestic policing operations absent a formal Insurrection Act invocation will result in near-universal bureaucratic slow-rolling, intensive SJA legal challenges, and senior leadership resignations.
• High Confidence: A rogue federal or state military element cannot sustain operations beyond 14 to 30 days if severed from the DLA/LOGCAP network and DFAS payroll processing.
• Medium Confidence: The deployment of federal troops to resolve a contested election would fracture the officer corps, resulting in localized refusals and intense reliance on judicial intervention to clarify lawful orders, culminating in military neutrality.
• Low Confidence: The exact threshold at which a Dual-Status Commander will openly defy a state governor in favor of a federal directive (or vice versa) prior to formal judicial intervention remains highly unpredictable and dependent on the personalities involved.

Collection Gaps and Legal Uncertainties

A primary intelligence collection gap relates to the psychological tipping point of the mid-level officer corps (O-4 to O-6 ranks). While senior leaders (O-8 to O-10) are intimately involved in civil-military policy and high-level legal interpretations, operational execution relies entirely on field-grade officers who may interpret their UCMJ Article 92 duty to disobey unlawful orders differently in a highly polarized environment28.

Furthermore, profound legal uncertainty remains surrounding the limits of the Insurrection Act and the President's emergency authorities. Because the Insurrection Act has not been substantially modernized or tested in modern domestic conflict, its broad language regarding "unlawful combinations" provides a wide berth for executive interpretation8. Following the Trump v. United States decision, it is legally unresolved how the military justice system would ultimately handle a subordinate who refuses an Insurrection Act deployment order that the President believes is protected by absolute constitutional immunity, but which the subordinate views as manifestly unlawful36. This asymmetry in legal risk represents the most significant vulnerability in modern command cohesion.

Conclusion

The fracture of security-sector command during a U.S. constitutional crisis poses a severe threat to domestic stability, yet it fails to produce the traditional mechanics of a coup d'état or military overthrow. The U.S. security apparatus is fortified against systemic usurpation not merely by the democratic ethos of its personnel, but by an inescapable web of structural dependencies, legal constraints, and bureaucratic realities. The Posse Comitatus Act establishes rigid domestic boundaries that commanders are loath to cross, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates a complex legal calculation for every subordinate ordered to act within the homeland.

Most importantly, logistical tethering to the Defense Logistics Agency and civilian contractors under LOGCAP ensures that any rogue element is rapidly starved of material support. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service guarantees that financial continuity rests exclusively in the hands of recognized civilian authorities. When forced to navigate between conflicting claims of sovereign authority, the institutional reflex of the U.S. military is to seek shelter in political neutrality, bureaucratic friction, and judicial clarification. A multi-sided sovereignty crisis would undoubtedly generate profound institutional paralysis, jurisdictional clashes between state and federal authorities, and a crisis of subordinate liability. However, the dispersion of command authority, coupled with absolute dependency on civilian-controlled administrative architecture, guarantees that organizational fragmentation yields systemic gridlock rather than the transfer of sovereign authority to the armed forces.

Works cited

1. The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters \- Every CRS Report, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42659.html

2. Posse-Comitatus-Guidance-FINAL.pdf, https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/DOD/manual/full%20text%20documents/Other%20Relevant%20References/Posse-Comitatus-Guidance-FINAL.pdf

3. DoD Directive 3025.18, December 29, 2010 \- dco.uscg.mil, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf

4. DOD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement. DODD-5525.5, https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/d5525\_5.htm

5. service member rights Archives \- Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, https://www.militarydefense.com/tag/service-member-rights/

6. Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/04/12/2013-07802/defense-support-of-civilian-law-enforcement-agencies

7. Border Paper Final Post Example Swap-In 3 22 24.docx, https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/final-border-update.3.25.24.pdf

8. Insurrection Act of 1807 \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection\_Act\_of\_1807

9. Testimony-Goitein-2024-05-22.pdf, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Goitein-2024-05-22.pdf

10. article sovereignty, article ii, and the military during domestic unrest, https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Mirasola\_15-Harvard-Natl-Security-J.-1-2023.pdf

11. Voter Protection Program / The National Guard in Elections /10.22, https://statesunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/National-Guard.pdf

12. What You Need to Know About the National Guard, the Insurrection, https://www.lwv.org/blog/what-you-need-know-about-national-guard-insurrection-act-and-martial-law

13. A Critical Assessment of the Texas Military Department Chapter 1, https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TMD-Ch.-1-3-FINAL.pdf

14. The Role of the Department of Defense During A Flu Pandemic, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40619.html

15. Text (1.7 MB) \- GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htm

16. DSCA \- ALSSA, https://www.alssa.mil/Portals/9/Documents/mttps/dsca\_2021.pdf

17. Civil Support Operations \- BITS, https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm3-28%2810%29.pdf

18. United States Coast Guard | Margaret's Circle Wiki \- Fandom, https://the-margaret-marks.fandom.com/wiki/United\_States\_Coast\_Guard

19. section two: the federal response in the absence of a stafford act, https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/DOD/manual/Section%202%20-%20Fed%20Response%20in%20Absence%20of.pdf

20. United States Coast Guard \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Coast\_Guard

21. Deavers\_v\_Martin\_et\_al\_\_wvsdce-21-00423\_\_ ... \- PacerMonitor, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/filings/DDQMQ72Q/Deavers\_v\_Martin\_et\_al\_\_wvsdce-21-00423\_\_0098.0.pdf

22. Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e42b86aaf60f47e0826c7ac1a4bb2105

23. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): An, https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080721\_RL34585\_bca41d49282c8e9bebdcaab721a2394420584e4f.html

24. Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), https://www.michigan.gov/msp/divisions/emhsd/programs-and-publications/home-tabs/programs/left/emergency-management-assistance-compact-emac

25. Mutual Aid and Assistance Networks \- Mass.gov, https://www.mass.gov/doc/utilities-helping-utilities-mutual-aid-networks-for-emergency-response-0/download

26. National Incident Management System Guideline for Mutual Aid, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema\_nims\_mutual\_aid\_guideline\_20171105.pdf

27. UCMJ Provisions on Refusing Unlawful Orders — “Article 92, https://medium.com/@lovefoods\_54026/ucmj-provisions-on-refusing-unlawful-orders-article-92-failure-to-obey-order-or-regulation-53320e8f2e90

28. ORDERS: lawful and illegal \- Court-Martial Defense Lawyer, https://www.court-martial.com/orders-lawful-and-illegal/

29. Defense of Superior Orders Before Military Commissions, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151\&context=djcil

30. A little-known landmark ruling of historic dimensions, https://thinkwy.org/columns/a-little-known-landmark-ruling-of-historic-dimensions/

31. A Reconceptualization of the Obedience to Orders Defense, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326\&context=mlr

32. Refusing an Unlawful Military Order: Your Legal Duty, Your ... \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/1l8zbwp/refusing\_an\_unlawful\_military\_order\_your\_legal/

33. Can U.S. Military Officers Disobey Unlawful Orders? The, https://natecharles.substack.com/p/unlawful-orders-military-duty-constitution

34. Trump v. United States | Supreme Court \- Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-939

35. 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) \- Supreme Court, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf

36. Domestic Military Deployments After Trump v. United States, https://wmlawreview.org/sites/default/files/WML\_67-1\_Mirasola.pdf

37. Domestic Military Deployments After Trump v. United States, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol67/iss1/5/

38. (UN)LAWFUL ORDERS \- N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/JLPP-27-2-Ghiotto.pdf

39. Domestic Operational Law Handbook for Judge Advocates, 2013 \- Loc, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llmlp/domestic-law-handbook-2013/domestic-law-handbook-2013.pdf

40. NATIONALSECURITYLAW QUARTERLY, https://tjaglcs.army.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0w5D87pm0D0%3D\&portalid=0

41. 1 armed servants: agency, oversight and civil-military relations, https://repository.bilkent.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/ac3641f8-4247-4199-a37c-d8d96f396b19/content

42. Dr. Meory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, https://worldoriens.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/the-soldier-and-the-state-huntington.pdf

43. Paradoxes of Professionalism: Rethinking Civil-Military Relations in, https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/44/4/7/12253/Paradoxes-of-Professionalism-Rethinking-Civil

44. A Study of the Theories Explaining the Civil–Military Relationship, https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/downArticle/435/11/1/294632

45. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, https://books.google.com/books/about/Armed\_Servants.html?id=ky3uDGM\_cEAC

46. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, https://polisci.duke.edu/books/armed-servants-agency-oversight-and-civil-military-relations

47. The Two-Trusts Problem in American Civil-Military Relations, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-two-trusts-problem-in-american-civil-military-relations/

48. Rethinking Civil-Military Relations in the United States \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340612145\_Paradoxes\_of\_Professionalism\_Rethinking\_Civil-Military\_Relations\_in\_the\_United\_States

49. Why and how the US military contests civilian decisions about the, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/sources-of-military-dissent-why-and-how-the-us-military-contests-civilian-decisions-about-the-use-of-force/9E14608FF99925665274260628A62102

50. Integrating the Civil–Military Relations Subfield \- Annual Reviews, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060518-025407

51. United States civil-military relations: Finding equilibrium in the, https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2615\&context=rtds

52. Defense Finance and Accounting Service \> MilitaryMembers, https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/

53. Pay Processing: DFAS and MyPay \- Department of War, https://www.war.gov/Contact/Help-Center/Article/article/2746449/pay-processing-dfas-and-mypay/

54. Understanding the VA Waiver and Retired Pay/CRDP/CRSC ... \- DFAS, https://www.dfas.mil/RetiredMilitary/disability/VA-Waiver-and-Retired-Pay-CRDP-CRSC/

55. History of DLA \- Defense Logistics Agency, https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/History/

56. DOD's Logistics Agency Touches American Lives \- Department of War, https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2825305/dods-logistics-agency-touches-american-lives/

57. LOGCAP \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOGCAP

58. LOGCAP VI: What Federal Contractors Need to Know About the, https://iquasar.com/blog/logcap-vi-what-federal-contractors-need-to-know-about-the-armys-global-logistics-support-program/

59. US Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP IV) \- Fluor, https://www.fluor.com/projects/contingency-operations-logistics-construction

60. Intelligence Support in Little Rock (24 SEP 1957\) \- DVIDS, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/575147/intelligence-support-little-rock-24-sep-1957

61. Enforcing School Integration in Little Rock, Arkansas (1957), https://eisenhowerfoundation.net/primary-source/press-release-executive-order-10730-providing-removal-obstruction-justice-within

62. Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis, https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock-school-integration-crisis

63. Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo29162/pdf/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo29162.pdf

64. Monograph Body, https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p4013coll3/id/1236/download

65. Maurice Challe \- Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/Maurice\_Challe

66. List of coups and coup attempts by country \- Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/List\_of\_coups\_and\_coup\_attempts\_by\_country

67. French Army \- Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/French\_Army

68. There's a conspiracy theory that the 1981 Spanish coup attempt was, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a67lty/theres\_a\_conspiracy\_theory\_that\_the\_1981\_spanish/

69. Reign of Juan Carlos I of Spain Facts for Kids \- Kids encyclopedia facts, https://kids.kiddle.co/Reign\_of\_Juan\_Carlos\_I\_of\_Spain

70. The Limits of the Civil-Military Relations Paradigm, https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/daedalus\_fa25\_13\_brooks.pdf

71. Understanding Current Threats to Democracy: The Limits of the Civil, https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/154/4/231/134154/Understanding-Current-Threats-to-Democracy-The

72. Separation of Powers Reinforced: Judicial Nonintervention in, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/separation-of-powers-reinforced%3A-judicial-nonintervention-in-military-training-and-operational-policies/view

73. Gilligan v. Morgan | 413 U.S. 1 (1973) \- Justia Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/1/

74. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973). \- Loc, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep413/usrep413001/usrep413001.pdf

75. What is EMAC? \- Emergency Management Assistance Compact, https://www.emacweb.org/index.php/what-is-emac

76. The Fight Against Fascism in the USA \- Socialist Alliance, https://socialist-alliance.org/sites/default/files/fight\_against\_fascism\_in\_the\_usa.pdf

77. US Civil-Military Relations Are Complicated, But Not Broken, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/06/us-civil-military-relations-are-complicated-not-broken/174826/