Reject Military Exploitation Disguised as Support

I strongly urge you to oppose and vote "No" on HB2593 (Hardwick) and SB1001 (Schnelting), which represent a dangerous entanglement of military and civilian life and a misuse of state resources that will ultimately harm the communities they claim to protect. The expansion of the Missouri National Guard’s role into cybersecurity under the “Cybersecurity Mission Act” is deeply concerning. It permits the Guard to enter into agreements with private utility companies and critical infrastructure facilities. Without explicit, ongoing consent from the owners of civilian systems, this provision creates a pathway for military involvement in civilian networks. This violates the principle of civilian control over our digital infrastructure and raises the specter of surveillance. We should be funding public, civilian-led cybersecurity initiatives, not creating a framework where the military can be deployed to scan or interact with the private communications and devices of Missourians. The creation of a dedicated “Missouri National Guard Cybersecurity Revolving Fund” allows the Adjutant General to charge political subdivisions and public universities for military aid. This effectively creates a for-profit military service. This commodifies public safety, forcing already underfunded local governments to choose between paying for essential services or paying for state military protection. The MO GIVES program, ostensibly created to support living organ donors, contains provisions that open the door to exploitation. The program allows qualified members to designate whether their donation is “directed to a specific individual, nondirected, or paired.” This structure, combined with the absence of any restrictions on the nationality or location of the recipient, creates a pathway for servicemembers to be pressured into donating organs to foreign actors with documented histories of operating illegal organ trafficking rings, including forced donation and organ theft, such as Israel, China, and the Philippines. By establishing a state-sanctioned program with no safeguards preventing organs from flowing to such entities, Missouri risks facilitating a black market trade that preys on servicemembers. I also oppose the deeply flawed educational assistance program. While helping National Guard members with tuition is a worthy goal, this bill forces a competition for resources that undermines public education. The provision that waives tuition only “after the application of all payments” from federal sources and “awarded external scholarships” effectively uses state funds to backfill gaps in federal funding rather than creating new opportunities. More critically, the bill includes a punitive clawback provision requiring recipients to repay all educational assistance if they leave the Guard. This is a coercive measure that traps individuals in military service under threat of financial ruin. Education should be a pathway to freedom, not a tool for forced retention.