Defend Hawaii or Lose it | Support SB2054

In June 2025, President Trump federalizes over 4,000 California National Guard troops and deploys them to Los Angeles against Governor Gavin Newsom's explicit objections: 

“President Trump turned the National Guard against the communities they swore to serve. This is unlawful and immoral. Under state direction, California National Guard members have always been deployed in support of our communities – acting as surge medical staff in crises, helping with wildfire management, supporting fentanyl interdiction, and now, as the President withholds food stamps from hungry families, the Guard is distributing food to those in need. The National Guard deserves better than being treated like Trump’s toy soldiers – and when they’re returned to California command, we’ll get them back to doing the real work they signed up to do.”

It appears that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Ostensibly to quell protests against aggressive federal immigration raids, this federal action escalated into blatant and excessive overreach with armed troops patrolling city streets and clashing with demonstrators. It led to allegations of excessive force, racial profiling, and illegal detentions.

Profoundly Un-American

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer delivered a scathing rebuke in Newsom v Trump, ordering the deployment's end and calling it "profoundly un-American" while highlighting a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement without clear justification. As the federal judge wrote in the December 10, 2025, order:

"It is profoundly un-American to suggest that people peacefully exercising their fundamental right to protest constitute a risk justifying the federalization of military forces."

The court further held that the federalization orders under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 lacked any colorable basis, as they failed to demonstrate a present inability to execute federal laws with regular forces. Judge Breyer enjoined the deployment, directing the return of control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. 

Why This Matters for Hawaii

This federal power grab exposes the fragility of state sovereignty. It's precisely why LPHI is championing the Defend Hawaii Act. Amid widespread support from groups like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, ACLU Hawaiʻi, and many individuals, the Hawaii National Guard stands as nearly the sole organized opponent.

In testimony summarized by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Guard expresses serious concerns that SB2054 could place commanders and service members in a "complex and potentially precarious situation," exposing them to significant legal risks including potential criminal liability under state or federal law. The perceived dilemma is that service members have a longstanding military obligation to obey lawful orders from superiors. If the Governor objects to a federal or out-of-state deployment request under the bill, following the Governor's directive might be seen as "non-assistance", risking prosecution, claims, or other liabilities. They also cite complications in dual-status frameworks, fearing blurred command lines could lead to personal jeopardy without clear safeguards.

The Guard's position overlooks a key reality. Under current law and the bill's design, the primary risk to service members arises if they disobey the Governor. SB2054 reinforces state command in Title 32 or state active duty status, where governors already retain authority to refuse federal requests. The bill's narrow scope means non-assistance liability would only theoretically emerge if service members ignore the Governor's explicit objection and assist anyway. The bill prohibits this precisely to prevent such conflicts and protect them from being pulled into unlawful federal operations. 

The bill prohibits what the Constitution already bars, but it does so proactively through state law to prevent the very risks the Guard fears. It turns a constitutional principle into a lawful and enforceable shield tailored to Hawaii's context. It clarifies boundaries to eliminate ambiguity and reduce risk. Limited to state-controlled units (Title 32 or state active duty) and triggered only by the Governor's explicit objection to specific in-state deployments, SB2054 aligns duties with the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers, shields Guard members from being forced into constitutionally dubious federal operations (such as those violating the 4th Amendment), and ensures they follow clear, lawful gubernatorial directives.

Courts Protect, Not Punish the Guard

The Newsom v. Trump ruling directly refutes the Hawaii National Guard’s narrative, showing that unlawful federal deployments can be successfully challenged in court, with judges enforcing constitutional limits rather than punishing state-aligned refusals. The opinion emphasizes that adopting an interpretation allowing indefinite federal control over state troops "would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully". It is a scenario that "would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government." It invokes the Tenth Amendment's protection of state sovereign interests, citing Bond v. United States for the principle that 

"action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States." 

By clarifying that federalization orders remain judicially reviewable and must meet narrow statutory preconditions with no perpetual authority post-exigency, the court demonstrates that assertions of gubernatorial objection like Defend Hawaii empowers do not expose Guard members to personal jeopardy. Instead, they align with constitutional checks, reduce ambiguity, and shield service members from being forced into ultra vires operations that courts have deemed unlawful. 

From Hawaii Department of Defense.

The Absurdity of Capitulation: Is the Constitution Worth Defending?

Are they really suggesting that the Constitution isn't worth even a legal fight? That it's better to risk lives through unconstitutional capitulation? Their reasoning borders on absurdity when viewed through the lens of the Constitution they claim to defend. The courts are in place so that the people’s constitutional rights are protected, and the National Guard is arguing it’s better to go along and get along at the expense of Hawaii. 

Let's take a look at constitutional foundations the National Guard is dismissing. The 10th Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, including primary authority over unfederalized militias. Federal law echoes this: Governors retain command under Title 32 and can refuse requests. Defend Hawaii enforces these boundaries by prohibiting Hawaii's Guard from assisting federal or out-of-state forces if the Governor objects. This shields members from federal operations that violate constitutional protections as seen in the mainland.

The 2nd Amendment declares a "well regulated Militia" essential to a free state's security. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 46, an armed populace loyal to decentralized state governments forms an "insurmountable" barrier against federal ambition. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the militia's role in checking centralized power as the people's safeguard. By preventing our Guard from being commandeered against the state's will, Defend Hawaii preserves this design, so Hawaii's militias focus on our islands' disasters and communities above federal agendas.

The Senate Committee on Judiciary's report urges: 

“Your Committee finds that President Trump has recently federalized and deployed national guard units in various states, despite the objections of those states' Governors… This measure will reinforce the State's sovereignty by ensuring that state resources are not used to support operations that lack alignment with the State's democratically elected leadership.”

Acknowledging the Guard's concerns, the committee rightly counters that service members may need to confront "difficult legal positions" and refuse unlawful orders based on conscience:

“Your Committee notes the concerns raised by the Hawaiʻi National Guard on this measure, specifically that this measure may create a complex and potentially precarious situation for Hawaiʻi National Guard Commanders and service members by exposing them to significant legal risks that may manifest as both state and federal criminal liability.  This legal dilemma arises from the legal obligation for service members to obey orders from their superiors, which stands in stark contrast to the possibility of being held accountable for those orders if they are later determined to be unlawful.  While your Committee acknowledges these concerns, your Committee believes that the United States has reached a place where members of the military, including members of the Hawaiʻi National Guard, will be forced to face difficult legal positions where individuals must decide whether the orders they are receiving are legal and whether they are willing to refuse those orders if in their own conscience they believe they should.”

Take Action | Support SB2054

With Pacific isolation and unique history of external injustices in Hawaii, such overreach could be catastrophic. Defend Hawaii prevents this by recognizing our Governor has the authority to block unwanted deployments so that resources remain local. This bill is a pragmatic victory for the Bill of Rights, born from LPHI's decades of advocacy.

Urge the full Senate and House to Support SB2054 without weakening amendments. You can read our simple instructions on testifying here. Contact legislators, and join us in reclaiming sovereignty. Hawaii can lead the nation in honoring the Framers' vision of an armed and free people.

Build Momentum

Your support helps us defend Hawaii in the legislature and beyond!

• Share this post far and wide

  
  

• Become an Official Member of LPHI

  
  

• Donate with a one-time or recurring payment