(The Center Square) – Gov. Josh Shapiro is in a unique position regarding the deployment of the Pennsylvania National Guard.

He can consent to doing so, as he has for several federal requests since taking office two years ago, or he can decline, as he has also done during those same two years.

Recommended Stories

• Supreme Court allows family to file lawsuit over FBI wrong house raid
• Federal workers get telework reprieve due to military parade preparations
• Georgia GOP scoffs at vice chair who says women can’t win statewide

“As part of their responsibilities, the PANG has state and federal missions and remains constantly prepared to respond to both,” said Angela Watson, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. “Securing the border is a federal responsibility – and in the time Governor Shapiro has been in office, PANG has conducted several mobilizations to provide support for that mission. On multiple occasions in 2023, 2024, and 2025, over 100 PANG soldiers have been mobilized to the border.”

PANG is an abbreviation for the Pennsylvania National Guard. Watson added that Shapiro has consented to sending troops to the southern border on federal orders “and supported and ensured their mobilization.”

The governor’s administration confirmed the same to The Center Square on Wednesday afternoon after he mentioned doing so during a CNBC television interview earlier this week.

But, he’s not unwilling to say no. In March 2024, via legislation, Shapiro turned down a request from the Senate to deploy troops to the southern border, preferring congressional immigration reform instead.

SIX MONTHS IN, MCCORMICK IS IN THE TRENCHES ON BIG ISSUES IN PENNSYLVANIA

On Wednesday, he told the Washington Post that he alone would decide whether guardsmen would be sent to Philadelphia on Saturday to keep public order during the coordinated nationwide “No Kings” demonstrations.

“And should the Guard be needed,” he said, “it would be deployed at my direction following a legal process, not the way it’s been done in California, which I think has been really dangerous, the way the president has gone around set legal precedent.”