As President Donald Trump mobilizes the National Guard in California, tensions are escalating into legal disputes regarding constitutional authority. This decision comes against the backdrop of opposition from California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, who argues that Trump overstepped his powers.
In Washington state, the situation is being closely monitored by Democratic leaders who express anxiety over the potential replication of events similar to those occurring in California. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown criticized Trump’s actions as reckless and illegal, asserting they represent an authoritarian approach aimed at suppressing opposition.
“We’re seeing authoritarianism,” Brown stated in an interview with KUOW’s Soundside. “We’re seeing dictatorial behavior. We’re seeing that to suppress what the president believes is the opposition and we’re seeing a disregard for the rule of law—all characteristics of a fascist government.”
Tensions heightened as the White House commented on unrest in Los Angeles, claiming that radical elements were disrupting public order. According to a statement from the Trump administration, the strife was a direct consequence of their actions to remove violent illegal immigrants from communities.
Amid these developments, Washington has recently implemented a law aimed at streamlining the deployment of the National Guard. Rep. Sharlett Mena, a Democrat from Tacoma, introduced House Bill 1321, which forbids armed military forces from other states from entering Washington without the governor’s permission unless they are federalized.
Under the current circumstances, it appears that if President Trump were to federalize the National Guard for such deployments, the state’s authority would be significantly diminished. Mena acknowledges this legal limitation, stating that the bill was primarily crafted to prevent potential interference from National Guard units from other states, namely red states, who could be engaged in military actions.
Reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security has been working with the Pentagon to request nearly 20,000 volunteer National Guard troops for deportation efforts, further raising alarms about the factional use of national resources. Mena articulated concerns about the implications of repeated federal mobilizations, highlighting the cost to taxpayers when the federal government assumes financial responsibility.
“When the President federalizes the National Guard, the federal government is on the hook for the bill,” she explained. “It’s really meant to be a deterrent when considering how often the President could use this authority.
Despite the good intentions behind House Bill 1321, skepticism remains regarding its effectiveness. Rep. Jim Walsh, chair of the Washington GOP in Aberdeen, labeled it as “not a bad bill, but kind of a pointless bill.”
Critical opinions have also emerged regarding the overall impact of the law. Paul Queary, a political commentator on KUOW’s Sound Politics podcast, suggested skepticism about state laws sufficiently counteracting the potential mobilization of National Guard troops from neighboring states.
The ongoing debate in Washington state highlights a growing divide over national security, state rights, and the executive’s power, raising critical questions about the future dynamics of state versus federal authority.
image source from：https://www.kuow.org/stories/could-trump-mobilize-washington-state-s-national-guard-if-immigration-raid-protests-break-out
