Allard says state lawmakers have no authority to compel testimony from military commander

By SUZANNE DOWNING

A member of the Alaska Legislature who is an Army veteran has thrown a caution flag to state lawmakers who may believe they have authority to compel active-duty military commanders to appear before legislative committees.

The action taken by Eagle River Rep. Jamie Allard comes following reports that Alaska-based soldiers may be deployed to Minnesota in response to a violent uprising against federal immigration enforcement operations. A co-chair of the Legislature’s Joint Armed Services Committee requested that the commanding general of the 11th Airborne Division at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson come before the committee to update them on the plans.

Breaking Alaska-based Army paratroopers placed on standby amid Minnesota violent riots

Committee co-chair Sen. Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, indicated the committee’s intent to invite a senior representative of the 11th Airborne Division to appear before lawmakers in Juneau to explain the reports.

Allard sent her letter dated Jan. 22 to Brigadier Gen. John Cogbill, commander of the 11th Airborne Division at JBER, emphasizing that military command structures do not fall under state legislative authority.

In her letter, Rep. Allard acknowledged the committee’s interest in information but drew a firm legal distinction between civilian state government authority and military command structures.

“As a veteran, I understand and respect the principle that active duty military leaders answer up through the Department of War and the chain of command established under federal law,” Allard wrote. She cited federal authorities governing domestic deployments, including Defense Support to Civil Authorities, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Posse Comitatus Act.

“In that context,” she continued, “active duty commanders are not subject to legislative subpoena in the same manner as civilian executives or state officials and a general officer’s appearance before a state legislative body is not a requirement of law.”

The letter directly addresses growing political pressure within the Legislature for military officials to brief state lawmakers, despite the fact that active-duty Army units operate under federal command and ultimately answer to the President and the Department of Defense, not the state.

Committee co-chair Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, has also raised concerns publicly in a social media video, suggesting that the potential deployment could implicate the Insurrection Act. Both Gray and Kawasaki have argued that Alaskans deserve answers about the scope and purpose of any deployment.

However, legal authority over active-duty forces rests exclusively with federal civilian leadership and the military chain of command. Oversight of federal military operations is exercised by Congress, not state legislatures.

Allard’s letter lays out that distinction, explaining the issue as one of constitutional structure rather than political preference. While lawmakers may request briefings or express concerns, state legislative committees have no power to compel testimony from active-duty commanders or interfere with federal deployment decisions.

Democrat Alaska lawmakers want military to brief them on Minnesota deployment