In Washington state, political leaders are bracing for possible upheaval following President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to mobilize the National Guard in California against the wishes of Governor Gavin Newsom.
The situation has prompted concerns among Democrats in Washington, where Trump’s focus on the Seattle protests in 2020 has fanned the flames of political anxiety.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown has characterized Trump’s actions as “reckless, political, and illegal,” asserting that Washington would take legal action if similar measures were attempted in their state.
Brown expressed his concern about the erosion of constitutional norms, stating, “We’re seeing authoritarianism and dictatorial behavior. It feels like an effort to suppress opposition, disregarding the rule of law, which are traits indicative of fascist governance.”
The White House recently defended Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, claiming it was a necessary response to what they termed “radical left lunatics” causing chaos in cities like Los Angeles.
As tensions mount, questions arise regarding how the same scenario could unfold in Washington state, especially given the recent passage of a law that restricts National Guard mobilization.
Rep. Sharlett Mena, a Democrat from Tacoma, spearheaded House Bill 1321 earlier this year, which prohibits the entry of armed military forces from other states for military duty without the governor’s permission, unless those forces are federally activated.
Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard in California, executed under a seldom-used law aimed at quelling a perceived “rebellion,” has raised alarms. Mena pointed out that if the president were to federalize the National Guard, the governor’s authority in Washington would be significantly weakened.
The bill was crafted primarily to ensure that troops from other states, particularly those led by Republican governors, could not independently act in Washington.
Moreover, a memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security reportedly includes a proposal to the Pentagon requesting 20,000 volunteer National Guard troops to assist in deportations.
Mena emphasized the financial implications of such federal actions, noting, “When the President federalizes the National Guard, the federal government is on the hook for the bill.”
This raises serious concerns about the extent to which Trump could leverage this authority, effectively using federal resources to intervene in state matters as a deterrent.
However, the law’s effectiveness has been challenged by some, including local GOP leaders. Rep. Jim Walsh of Aberdeen has derided the bill as “not a bad bill, but kind of a pointless bill,” suggesting that its practical impact might be limited.
In an episode of KUOW’s Sound Politics podcast, Paul Queary, publisher of the Washington Observer, echoed Walsh’s sentiments, stating, “If the Idaho National Guard is massing in Coeur d’Alene, I don’t know that a state law is really going to help.”
As the political landscape continues to shift under President Trump’s leadership, the implications of National Guard mobilization remain a hot topic of debate, revealing the strains between state rights and federal authority.
image source from：https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/09/could-trump-mobilize-washington-state-s-national-guard-if-immigration-raid-protests-break-out/
