President Donald Trump’s recent decision to deploy National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., has ignited a fierce debate across the country—nowhere more so than in Oregon. On August 13, 2025, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek openly criticized the President’s move, warning that it represents an overreach of federal authority and poses risks to local communities. According to KATU News, Kotek stated, “President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. demonstrates once again his alarming disregard for the authority of cities and states to govern and protect themselves. Putting our own military on our streets with an ambiguous mission is a disservice to our communities and our service members.”
Governor Kotek emphasized her commitment to the principle that the Oregon National Guard should only be called upon when the mission is clear and directly supports the protection of Oregonians. As she put it, “As the Commander in Chief of the Oregon National Guard, I remain committed to only deploying the Guard when our mission is clear, purposeful, and supports the primary mission to protect Oregonians.” At this point, Kotek noted, there has been no indication from the federal government that similar deployments are planned for Oregon.
The controversy comes on the heels of Trump’s earlier deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in June, which prompted Oregon Representative Paul Evans to take legislative action. Evans introduced a bill in the Oregon House aimed at restricting when the Oregon National Guard could be called into federal active service. According to KATU News, Evans explained the motivation behind the bill: “The National Guard should never be involved directly in law enforcement. That is the one thing the National Guard is never supposed to be doing for the federal government.”
The proposed legislation sought to limit the Adjutant General’s authority, allowing federal agencies to activate National Guard members only if the mission met specific criteria—such as supporting a congressionally authorized military operation or responding to a national disaster, in line with the 10th Amendment. Evans told KATU, “In state law throughout the United States and territories, a governor has sole authority over the adjutant general and the adjutant general is a construct of state constitutions. So it was the only way I knew to be able to provide a road bump or a speed bump, if you will, on the deployment of National Guard for inappropriate uses that are reflected in federal law and have been state precedent.”
The bill passed the Oregon House by a 31-16 margin, but its journey ended abruptly in the state Senate. Just two days before the legislative session’s close, a minority report was filed by Senator Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles), a move that required a 48-hour review. As a result, the bill ran out of time before it could reach a floor vote. Evans blamed this on “political gamesmanship,” asserting, “A couple of senators believed that it was an attack at the president instead of a protection of the National Guard. It is interesting to me that both of those senators never served in uniform. And I think, though I would never dispute their love of country, I think they don’t understand what it means to serve in an organization that includes every sacrifice, up to including your life.”
State Sen. Daniel Bonham and Senator Cedric Hayden (R-Fall City), the highest-ranking Republicans in the Oregon Senate, opposed the bill in committee. Bonham introduced the minority report that ultimately stalled the bill. In a statement to KATU News, a spokesperson for Bonham’s office defended the opposition, saying, “Senator Bonham voted against HB 3954 because it was not a serious attempt to improve emergency response readiness. It was a political statement aimed at President Trump. That intent was clear from the bill’s language and the rhetoric surrounding it.” Bonham’s office further argued that the bill could have created “legal uncertainty and administrative hurdles that could undermine readiness, jeopardize federal support, or politicize the Guard’s mission.”
Despite the setback, Evans remained convinced that the bill would have passed the Senate had it reached the floor, even suggesting that a Republican senator was considering crossing party lines to support the measure. Yet, Senate Republican leaders stood firm. Bonham’s office insisted, “Oregon is already short hundreds of Guard members. The last thing we should do is add legal uncertainty and administrative hurdles that could undermine readiness, jeopardize federal support, or politicize the Guard’s mission.”
The debate in Oregon echoes legislative efforts in other states. In late April 2025, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed a law restricting out-of-state military forces from entering the state without explicit permission. The law, as reported by KATU, does not prevent the National Guard from participating in disaster response and recovery through mutual-aid agreements. Governor Ferguson underscored the importance of state autonomy, declaring, “We welcome collaboration with National Guard forces when warranted, but only with our permission. We cannot have armed forces come into our state to enforce policies that are against our core values. I appreciated Rep. Mena’s leadership in bringing this important legislation to my desk.” The law took effect immediately thanks to an emergency clause and was modeled after similar statutes in Idaho, Montana, and Texas.
The constitutional questions surrounding federal deployment of the National Guard have also reached the courts. California Governor Gavin Newsom has sued the Trump Administration, challenging the legality of the June 2025 National Guard deployments. That trial began on August 11, 2025, with many legal experts and state officials watching closely to see how the federal courts will rule.
Norman Williams, a law professor at Willamette University, weighed in on the legal complexities. He explained to KATU News that the President’s authority to deploy the National Guard is greater in Washington, D.C., due to its status as a federal enclave. However, Williams clarified that outside of D.C., the 10th Amendment prevents the President from taking over local police forces, such as the Portland Police. “We will learn hopefully in the next few days as to what the federal courts think about the legality of the president deploying the National Guard to address local law enforcement,” Williams said.
As the legal battles unfold and state legislatures grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, the debate over the National Guard’s role in domestic affairs shows no signs of abating. The issue has become a flashpoint for broader questions of federalism, executive power, and the limits of military involvement in civilian life. For many Oregonians—and Americans watching from afar—the outcome of these disputes will shape how the nation responds to future crises and who ultimately holds the reins when it comes to public safety on American soil.
