Committee debates ban on law-enforcement training with foreign militaries and intelligence services
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Lawmakers heard House Bill 2293, which would bar Washington law enforcement and the CJTC from training with foreign militaries, intelligence or security services. Supporters cited constitutional and community concerns; law-enforcement groups warned the language is vague and could block useful training and international coordination.
The House Community Safety Committee on Jan. 13, 2026, heard House Bill 2293, a proposal to prohibit Washington general and limited-authority law enforcement agencies and the Criminal Justice Training Commission from participating in training programs, exchanges or partnerships with foreign militaries, intelligence agencies or security services.
Corey Patton, committee staff, told members the bill has three main components: banning agency participation in foreign military/intelligence training; prohibiting the CJTC from incorporating such foreign programs into curricula; and barring state funding or sponsorship of officer travel to foreign countries for that purpose.
Sponsor Daria Farvar said civilian policing differs from military service and that training should reflect U.S. constitutional standards. "Our officers are not soldiers," Farvar said, arguing that U.S. military, federal law-enforcement entities and domestic partners can provide necessary instruction and that carve-outs for Canada and Mexico were under consideration.
James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, testified in opposition and urged the committee to resolve major definitional gaps: he asked how the bill would treat organizations such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, military police, or foreign police that may perform functions overlapping military, intelligence or security roles. McMahon also noted the practical value of training on tactical medicine, drone threats and large-event security that agencies sometimes obtain from foreign partners.
Members asked sponsors and stakeholders for a clearer inventory of what foreign training currently takes place, who receives it and for what purposes. The sponsor and committee staff signaled interest in polling agencies and drafting clarifying amendments. No committee vote occurred; staff and sponsors will continue stakeholder outreach ahead of executive action.