Alaska Lawmakers Say 11th Airborne Commander Won’t Testify on Minneapolis Stand-Down of 1,500 Troops

A disputed deployment plan ties Alaska-based active-duty troops to unrest in Minneapolis

Alaska lawmakers say the commander of the U.S. Army’s 11th Airborne Division will not appear before a state legislative committee to discuss a reported stand-down of more than 1,500 soldiers who had been placed on alert for a potential mission connected to Minneapolis.

The troops, drawn from two infantry battalions based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, had previously received “prepare-to-deploy” orders amid escalating political and legal conflict over federal immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota. Federal officials described the alert status as contingency planning tied to a possible presidential decision to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that can authorize active-duty forces to perform domestic law-enforcement functions under limited circumstances.

What lawmakers say changed: from standby to stand-down

In Juneau, leaders of Alaska’s Joint Armed Services Committee said they sought to question 11th Airborne Division leadership about the mission scope and the legal authorities that could govern any deployment. Committee leaders said they were subsequently informed that the division commander would not be able to testify at the Capitol this week.

Separately, Alaska legislative leaders stated they had confirmed, through the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, that the Alaska-based battalions that had been on standby were stood down. The stand-down has been widely reported as a decision connected to U.S. Northern Command, though key details—including the formal order and timing—have not been publicly released in full.

Why Minneapolis was in the picture

The potential deployment emerged after weeks of intensified federal immigration enforcement activity in Minneapolis and resulting protests. In mid-January, federal officials publicly acknowledged that roughly 1,500 Alaska-based soldiers had been placed on alert in case the President chose to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to unrest tied to immigration enforcement operations.

Minnesota state and local leaders publicly opposed the prospect of federalizing the response with active-duty troops. The dispute unfolded alongside reported arrests connected to the enforcement surge and heightened scrutiny of federal officer use-of-force incidents in the Twin Cities.

Oversight questions and limits on state authority

The Alaska committee’s inquiry centered on what tasks soldiers would perform if deployed—particularly whether their role would be limited to protecting federal personnel and facilities or would extend into broader crowd-control or policing functions. Some Alaska legislators argued that active-duty commanders are not subject to compulsory state legislative process and that testimony could require approval through federal military channels.

• The 11th Airborne Division is an active-duty Army formation under federal command, not the Alaska National Guard.
• Any use of active-duty troops for domestic law enforcement typically depends on federal legal authorities, including the Insurrection Act.
• State lawmakers can request briefings, but they do not direct federal deployment decisions.

The competing accounts leave unresolved questions about how and when the stand-down decision was made, and what operational planning occurred while troops were on alert.

No public timeline has been released detailing when the stand-down took effect, what specific mission parameters were contemplated, or whether any additional federal forces remain in a heightened readiness posture related to Minneapolis.

Committee leaders indicated they still intend to seek further clarification through available channels, while acknowledging that decisions about active-duty deployments—and the approval of military testimony—ultimately flow through federal authorities.