The recent announcement that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has accepted funding from a Republican mega-donor to pay for sending South Dakota’s National Guard to the Mexican border is controversial. Roughly 3,600 service members, mostly National Guard troops, are already on the southern border supporting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operations.

Noem will be deploying up to 50 troops to support a state-led mission overseen by Texas governor Greg Abbott. South Dakota’s Guard members will deploy on active-duty orders, which means Noem is their commander-in-chief for the mission. As such, they are permitted to act in law enforcement capacities, which is forbidden for Guard members serving on the federal DHS mission.

A donation to cover the cost of this deployment was made by a Tennessee-based foundation controlled by Willis and Reba Johnson. The amount was not disclosed. Willis Johnson has donated to GOP campaigns for decades, including more than $550,000 to former President Trump in 2019 and 2020 according to federal election filings.

In left-aligned media, Noem’s plan has been characterized as unethical, a conflict of interest, an assault on the legitimacy of the federal government, and a political stunt for personal gain. Noem is believed to be considering a run for the White House. The scheme certainly blurs the boundaries between the public and private spheres, but it is not as unprecedented as critics suggest.

Many “governmental” activities are actually fulfilled by the private sector. Roads, bridges, and canals are constructed and operated by private companies under toll agreements. Car inspections, city parking meters and dozens of regulatory functions are outsourced by states and cities to private companies. Banks and finance companies provide student loans. Investor-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide payment guarantees on more than $4 trillion of mortgages to facilitate packaging them into bonds. Private companies (Standard & Poors, Moodys, Fitch) provide all of the credit ratings upon which financial markets depend.

Public/private partnerships are also common at the state and municipal level, and many enable social service endeavors favored by the left. For example, progressives have been pushing “social-impact bonds” and other privately funded experiments for years. Such initiatives are seen as a way to increase funding for services such as job training, convict re-integration, and childcare. Typically a private backer – often a foundation – signs up to fund a new approach to delivering social services. This helps governments shift the risks associated with policy innovations, at least until data is gathered that supports permanent change.

Unmistakably, such arrangements empower the funders to advocate for policy reforms that they favor.

Mechanically, these left-friendly examples look awfully similar to Governor Noem’s initiative to privately fund immigration enforcement. Is outsourcing the funding of guns really different than outsourcing the funding of butter? Arguably yes, but not simply because we’re talking about guns.

There is ample precedent in U.S. history for private involvement with a variety of armed services and intelligence functions. Even after the Revolutionary War, state militias extended a citizen army model born in the colonial period. Deputizing merchant ships as “privateers” was a defining feature of the War of 1812. CIA contractors have repeatedly taken point on guns-for-drugs operations from the Vietnam War to the Contra insurgency against Nicaragua during the Reagan administration.

More recently, we outsourced operating Iraq War prisons and “antiterror” combat operations to a private company called Blackwater during the G.W. Bush administration. Privatizing Armed Services functions isn’t actually new, nor is it inherently problematic.

What is problematic is injecting states into immigration enforcement. This undermines national authority in a domain constitutionally delegated to the federal government. The “sanctuary cities” initiatives favored by the left violate the same principles. When state and local governments deliberately undermine national policy in areas where the federal government is constitutionally supreme they corrode the foundation of our federalist system and destroy democratic legitimacy.

The use of private funding and input to guide policy priorities, on the other hand, has a long and effective history. Many governments currently allow for taxpayer “check off” options in which individuals decide to what extent certain programs – like support for public campaign financing – get funded. Voting for public policies with money is a common practice, and one that we should consider expanding to increase democratic legitimacy.

Imagine a world where every taxpayer gets to directly allocate a portion of their remittances, perhaps 10%, by picking from a cafeteria list of specific programs. That kind of vote-your-dollars system would amplify perceptions of democratic accountability. It might steal some momentum from the taxavoiding industrial complex by giving the wealthy stronger incentives to pay their fair share. If nothing else, it could disrupt the overwhelming influence of paid lobbyists. Tax season still wouldn’t be fun, but it would be much more gratifying.