In Washington, Democratic leaders in blue states are voicing their concerns over the deployment of National Guard troops from red states for immigration enforcement. This concern has prompted a move in Washington state to prevent such actions. Representative Sharlett Mena, a Democratic leader, has introduced a bill aimed at making the deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops illegal without permission. The legislation, which recently passed a committee, has found strong backing from Governor Bob Ferguson, who highlighted its importance in his inaugural address.
Mena emphasized the need for this bill, pointing out the lack of protections currently in place against such deployments. She warned that states could independently take action to enforce federal laws, referencing a commitment made in December by 26 Republican governors. These governors pledged to assist former President Donald Trump in deporting immigrants deemed a threat to national security, which included the potential use of National Guard troops for immigration enforcement.
Experts agree with Mena’s concerns. Joseph Nunn, a counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the Trump administration had previously indicated plans to use military resources for immigration enforcement. He suggests that states opposed to such measures should take protective action like Washington’s proposed bill.
In a related development, Texas recently signed an agreement with the Trump administration that gives National Guard troops law enforcement powers, including arresting and detaining migrants. Previously, Governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star had limited the National Guard’s role to surveillance and logistical support. Nunn speculated that Washington’s legislative efforts could inspire similar actions in other states that oppose Trump’s immigration policies. Mena pointed out that several states, such as Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas, have already implemented laws restricting out-of-state National Guard deployments without approval.
Despite the legislative efforts, Mena acknowledged that if the National Guard were federalized, Washington’s law would be overruled. If President Trump or any future president were to issue such an order, states would have no power to prevent federalized troops from deploying.
Republican leaders have criticized the proposed legislation as unnecessary. Representative Jim Walsh called it a symbolic move aimed at criticizing Trump, arguing that existing federal and state policies already address the issue. He also dismissed Washington’s broader stance on immigration enforcement, labeling it ineffective and a threat to public safety.
Under federal law, the National Guard typically operates under state authority. However, Title 32 of the U.S. Code allows National Guard units to receive federal funding while remaining under the control of state governors. This provision was originally intended to support training efforts but has since been expanded to include broader applications. Previous administrations, including those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump, have used National Guard troops for border security. In 2020, Trump also called for National Guard deployments to Washington, D.C., to suppress protests—a move that was carried out by 11 governors despite opposition from the district’s mayor.
Legal experts have discussed the legal implications of such measures. William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, described Washington’s legislation as a way of asserting state sovereignty. While the bill may have limited legal power, he views it as an “insurance policy” to reinforce the state’s control over its own National Guard units. However, he noted that the Insurrection Act could override such state measures, allowing the federal government to deploy troops in nonconsenting states during a national emergency.
Nathan Bays, the deputy policy director for Washington’s governor, defended the bill as a necessary precaution that would not impair the state’s National Guard readiness. On the other hand, Republican Representative Rob Chase criticized the bill as fear-mongering and argued that the legislature should focus on more pressing issues, such as public safety, homelessness, and the fentanyl crisis.
The ongoing debate highlights broader concerns over state autonomy, federal authority, and the role of the National Guard in immigration enforcement. Washington state’s proposed legislation stands as a powerful statement in the ongoing struggle to balance state sovereignty with federal control.
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.
