Hawaii Governor Josh Green has established a firm position regarding federal requests to activate the Hawaii National Guard, especially concerning law enforcement duties, in light of national turmoil and controversial policies from President Donald Trump’s administration.
Green’s communications director, Makana McClellan, voiced that the Governor will require a comprehensive briefing to understand the circumstances and true necessity of any federal request before contemplating the deployment of National Guard soldiers to assist with law enforcement tasks.
“Governor Green carefully considers all requests to activate the Hawaii National Guard, which can be made for specific crises. Though like other Governors, he feels the guard is most appropriately used for local state crises, guided by that state’s Governor,” McClellan explained to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
As the state grapples with the implications of federal involvement, McClellan emphasized that decisions regarding activation during natural disasters are usually more straightforward.
“Guard members are our family members and neighbors, who are eager to serve in various ways to assist their communities needing help,” she said.
The stance is particularly underscored by previous statements made by Green and other governors. In June, Green joined 21 other governors in denouncing Trump’s reaction to protests against his deportation policies, labeling it as an “alarming abuse of power.”
McClellan reiterated that the activation of the National Guard by the federal government should be a rare occurrence, emphasizing that Governor Green needs to be briefed fully on any such requests.
Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez echoed similar sentiments, recently participating in a joint statement from 18 attorneys general criticizing Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard as “unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic.”
During a recent informational briefing, Lt. Col. Lloyd C. Phelps, the Hawaii National Guard’s attorney, elaborated on the legal parameters and functions of the Guard in relation to law enforcement.
Phelps explained that his review of Trump’s executive order in California indicated that the National Guard was not authorized to perform traditional law enforcement roles.
“I didn’t see anything in there where they were expressing allowing the guard to perform police functions. … We just can’t operate doing the traditional law enforcement-type things,” he stated, clarifying that the Guard’s role had primarily involved the safeguarding of federal courthouses and providing logistical support.
Furthermore, Phelps highlighted that federal funding for the National Guard operates under state control. He specified that any deployment of the Hawaii National Guard in support of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would necessitate Governor Green’s consent.
“What you see going on in the state of Texas now, where you’ve got certain guards from certain states coming into Texas and supporting ICE operations, those were all done with the express consent of the governors involved,” he noted.
He emphasized, “If something were to come down the pike along those lines, it would take Governor Green’s consent.”
It is important to note that under existing state law in Hawaii, the National Guard is restricted from performing law enforcement functions.
Phelps expressed, “If anybody is activated here, they would have to follow state law.”
On the same day, the state House Committee on Public Safety convened to discuss the National Guard’s obligations in scenarios where the federal government requires assistance amid civil unrest.
The committee’s briefing was intended to understand the legal implications surrounding the federalization of National Guard personnel by presidential memoranda, particularly in light of the June 7, 2025 incident in California.
Committee Chair Rep. Della Au Belatti and Vice Chair Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto sought to explore the potential impact of recent federal actions on Hawaii’s National Guard and the accompanying challenges posed to public safety and the right to free speech during civil protests.
Belatti expressed interest in crafting state laws that could clarify the utilization of Guard members within Hawaii.
She mentioned a law in Oregon that outlines the use of Guard members and suggested that similar legislation could fortify Hawaii’s legal framework against potential federal overreach.
“As you think about litigation strategy, on this side of the table, we can make laws … if we craft it in a way that respects the rule of law and our constitutional obligations this is in fact something that we can do,” Belatti stated, looking for insight from Attorney General Lopez on potential policy approaches.
In response, Lopez indicated that legal frameworks might present challenges, especially if President Trump were to issue a federal Title 10 order to mobilize the Guard.
“In that situation, our adjutant general is potentially getting a direct order from the President of the United States. Whether or not any law that we pass would … put the brakes on following that order, I think the situation would be relatively limited,” she said carefully.
Lopez also highlighted the risks inherent in crafting laws, cautioning against the ramifications of broad executive orders.
“All of Trump’s executive orders are incredibly broad. They don’t bother to ever define a term. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is a great example; nobody knows what that means. … They have made it clear that they will retaliate. They will threaten loss of funds,” she remarked.
Despite recognizing the complexities, Lopez concluded, “I’m not saying we should back down. … There is a balance.”
image source from：yahoo
