Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the National Guard Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to limit some National Guard federal activations and bar law-enforcement duties
Summary
Representatives argued House Bill 39 54 would clarify state limits on National Guard use, prohibit the Adjutant General from facilitating certain DoD communications, and explicitly bar Guard use for law‑enforcement duties; sponsor said the text largely reflects current law while providing statutory clarity; no committee vote was taken.
The House Rules Committee took up House Bill 39 54 on May 5, 2025, a measure that would prohibit the Adjutant General from assisting or facilitating communications between the U.S. Department of Defense and Oregon National Guard members for the purpose of calling them into active service unless for specified purposes.
Sponsor testimony emphasized historical and constitutional context for state control of the guard, citing Article I responsibilities and the Tenth Amendment as background on federal-state military relationships. Representative Paul Evans described the bill as clarifying existing practice: it would preserve the governor’s authority to keep troops at home for state emergencies (wildfires, floods) and would expressly forbid the Guard from undertaking law-enforcement arrests while on federal duty.
Evans told the committee that the change ‘‘reflects current law now’’ and would make state law clearer so Oregon could more easily argue for state interests if conflicts arise. He cited operational pressures on the Guard—recruitment shortfalls and changing federal force structure—and said governors must be able to ensure sufficient home force levels. Evans noted the Oregon National Guard has been about 2,000 personnel below target levels in recent years.
Representative Willie Chotson, who testified in support, framed the bill as responsible stewardship of limited state resources. He said clearer statute can prevent future legal disputes and help protect state readiness for disasters when federal demands grow.
Committee members pressed for input from the National Guard. Vice Chair Drazen and Representative Amit expressed concern that the impacted entity was not present; Evans said he had purposely not asked the Adjutant General to testify to avoid putting him in a difficult position. Committee members said that they would be less inclined to advance the bill without direct input from the Guard on operational impacts.
Testimony included references to recent federal Department of Defense activity on the border and to federal code delineating the line between military support and law enforcement; sponsors said the bill would not prevent lawful federal mobilizations under declaration of war or congressional authorization. The hearing closed with no committee action recorded.
The measure remains under consideration in the Rules Committee.
