The case of Colonel Leslie Zyzda-Martin, an Air National Guard officer removed from command at Wisconsin’s Volk Field Air National Guard Base in 2021, exemplifies the troubling ambiguities surrounding jurisdiction and accountability within military structures.
The circumstances of her removal, which coincided with her disciplinary action against a subordinate for distributing explicit images, have raised questions about the motives behind her removal.
In the subsequent years, attempts to uncover the reasons behind her removal have met with silence from officials at the Pentagon and Wisconsin state lawmakers, including the governor. The Department of War (DoW) has brushed aside the issue, suggesting that they either have no sway over the National Guard or fully disregard pleas for assistance.
What could lead them to assert that they have no control over the National Guard? As stated in federal statutory law under 10 U.S. Code § 10501, “There is in the Department of Defense the National Guard Bureau, which is a joint activity of the Department of Defense.” Can it be written more clearly that the War Department would have authority over the NGB, given that the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Guard as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force operates within the War Department?
Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that the authority over the Guard varies based on whether the units are operating under state or federal jurisdiction. When the Guard is federalized for national defense, the President of the United States has supreme authority. In contrast, during local state operations, each state governor acts as the commander-in-chief.
Title 10 establishes federal command and control when National Guard members are ordered into federal service. Title 32, by contrast, operates as a federal-state hybrid model: Guard members remain part of the federally recognized National Guard and its federal reserve-component structure, while everyday command and control is exercised through the governor and state adjutant general.
This arrangement does not make Title 32 service purely state-controlled. Federal law, regulations, funding, standards, and oversight continue to govern significant aspects of Guard administration and operations, while the state adjutant general exercises day-to-day authority within that federal framework.
Federal officials, therefore, cannot reasonably invoke the National Guard’s state status as though it creates a blanket jurisdictional wall.
According to 32 U.S. Code § 314, “the adjutant general of each State…shall make such returns and reports as the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, and shall make those returns and reports to the Secretary concerned or to any office designated by him.”
In this context, consider the process of promotions in the Guard. The governor, through the state adjutant general, first promotes an officer at the state level. However, this promotion must receive formal federal recognition (emphasis mine), which is approved by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate (or the Secretary of Defense, depending on the rank) to be considered valid under federal law.
This system highlights the nature of authority in the promotion process, as evidenced by an examination of a memo regarding the promotion status of a member of the Army National Guard. Notably, the letter originated from the Department of Defense rather than the National Guard itself. Consequently, in this example, it is clear that promotions within the Guard are ultimately confirmed at the federal level.
The balance of authority is further illustrated by an incident in California. In June 2024, the Los Angeles Times reported that a California National Guard officer under investigation by the Inspectors General of the California Guard had displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer.
However, a phone call from the Pentagon changed everything. The Secretary of the Air Force’s (emphasis mine) Inspector General (SAF/IG) overturned the findings, and the officer involved was subsequently promoted. It was noted that “the office has the authority to overrule decisions by state inspectors general, but California Guard officials say that rarely happens.” Nevertheless, it does happen, once again demonstrating who has ultimate authority.
The Gateway Pundit spoke to Lt. Col. Ryan Sweazey (USAF-Ret.), the founder of Walk the Talk Foundation, an organization dedicated to advocating for and safeguarding whistleblowers. The former F-16 fighter pilot previously served as an Inspector General in the Air Force. In his perspective, “The assertions being made by current DoW and Air Force leadership that they have no purview over matters within the National Guard are, at best, half-truths and, at worst, intentional misrepresentations of fact in order to deflect responsibilities in this and other important matters.” For him, “The former Air Force Inspector General’s unsolicited intervention in the aforementioned California Guard case is very recent and very irrefutable proof of that.”
To provide another example of federal intervention, The Gateway Pundit also spoke to an unnamed Guardsman who had submitted a Religious Accommodation Request (RAR) concerning the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate. Initially, the request received approval from the state, traveling through the National Guard before reaching the Department’s Surgeon General (emphasis mine) where it was ultimately denied. Who had the final authority? Was it the state or the federal apparatus? Furthermore, who bears the burden of correcting this injustice? It’s the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR/NR), a federal (emphasis mine) administrative review body.
Additionally, in 2021, former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin responded to an inquiry from Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt. Regarding the unlawful 2019 COVID-19 shot mandates for members of the Oklahoma Army National Guard and Air National Guard, he instructed that all members of the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard must adhere to the COVID-19 vaccine compliance deadlines and requirements set by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force (emphasis mine), as mandated by Presidential authority under title 32, U.S. Code, section 110.
What distinguishes that exercise of federal authority from a request to review a contested command relief that produced zero substantiated findings?
Apart from these examples, what about a military line of duty (LOD) determination? It is a formal inquiry that assesses whether a service member’s injury, illness, or disease occurred while they were on duty, thereby determining their eligibility for medical care, disability compensation, and veterans’ benefits. Examples of determinations for Guard members provided to the author illustrate that the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force (emphasis mine) intervene when it chooses to, and when it prefers not to, it claims it’s a matter for the Guard. It’s the same within the Inspector General system.
Another anonymous Guardsman pointed out, “Governors would have no militia without the fully federally funded Title 32 technicians and Active Guard Reserve, [adding that] state leaders like to wave their ‘state rights’ hand in protest but fail to push the protest far enough to fund it themselves.” This sentiment underscores the troubling dynamic in the relationship between state and federal powers.
What stands out most in each situation is the unsettling reality that, when it serves their interests and proves convenient, federal agencies appear to play both sides.
In the case of Zyzda-Martin, this raises questions about the integrity of their actions. Could there be something in her situation that might cause embarrassment for the Department of the Air Force—or the Wisconsin governor—if they intervened? Were laws and regulations genuinely adhered to concerning her investigations and her removal from command?
As the investigation unfolds, it is imperative that both the Department of War and state officials recognize their roles and responsibilities, ensuring that transparency prevails over ambiguity. At this point in time, the Wisconsin Air National Guard is effectively undermining the Department of the Air Force by operating under a thin guise of autonomy. Given the numerous instances of federal involvement in Guard affairs, there is no justification for their lack of response.
J.M. Phelps emailed a series of questions directly to Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, SAF Inspector General Lt Gen David Lyons, National Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Steven Nordhaus, and others.
The inquiries were as follows:
Responses were not received by press time.
