(Olympia, WA) As the Trump administration pursues its hardline immigration agenda, Democratic lawmakers in Washington are trying to take steps to protect immigrant communities in the state.
Rep. Sharlett Mena is sponsoring House Bill 1321, which would limit other states’ National Guard troops from deploying in Washington without the governor’s permission — unless they are mobilized by the president.
“I think the last thing we want to see is folks feeling scared in their communities or feeling like they’re going to get rounded up at work or at school,” Mena said.
The bill is a response to 26 Republican governors releasing a joint statement in December saying they were “ready to utilize every tool at our disposal — whether through state law enforcement or the National Guard” to support President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.
“It is my concern that there would be other states wanting to enforce federal immigration law,” Mena said.
In recent years, states have sent their National Guards to other states to support immigration enforcement.
Two months after former President Joe Biden took office, Texas launched “Operation Lone Star,” aimed at increasing security along the state’s section of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The program, which has cost more than $11 billion to date, has used federal funds and the Texas National Guard. But multiple Republican states, like Florida and Montana, have used their own budgets to send National Guard troops to support Texas.
The National Guard is a state-based military force when not activated for federal service and is under the command of the state governor and the president of the United States. Some states also have State Guards, which are under state control.
The National Guard operates under three statuses. Under “state active duty” the Guard is under control of the governor in the state where it’s based. Under “Title 10 status” it is under the control of the president and temporarily becomes part of the federal armed forces. And under “Title 32 status” the National Guard is under control of the governor but may perform certain duties specified by Congress or missions requested by the president.
This bill would only prevent the National Guard from entering Washington when it is being operated under state active duty and Title 32 status. It would not affect Title 10 status, in which a president calls on the National Guard for an operation.
It would also not prevent the state military from training or readiness or impede the ability of the National Guard to provide support during an emergency or natural disaster.
Many states, including Republican strongholds like Texas, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma, already have laws on the books that are similar to the proposal Mena is pushing.
“I actually don’t think it has to be a partisan issue, because the political winds and the other Washington change so frequently that other states have seen the need for this,” Mena said.
Gov. Bob Ferguson supports the bill, highlighting it in his inaugural address earlier this month. Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for the governor’s office, testified in support during a House committee hearing Wednesday, saying the bill is a necessary precautionary measure.
House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, has highlighted the bill as a proactive measure the state could take in response to Trump-era policies.
But Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, a member of the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee and also state Republican Party chair, described the bill as a solution in search of a problem. He doesn’t see a scenario where it’s needed.
“The important thing is it doesn’t affect the federalization of the National Guard,” Walsh said. “If the president decided there were immigration enforcement crisis and nationalized Guard units, then they could be implemented at the border if that ever happened.”
“This bill wouldn’t prevent that,” he said.
This story first appeared on Washington State Standard.