Defend Hawaii | Talk of Amendments

We are happy to announce that our Defend Hawaii Act is still going strong. Questions have been raised by a number of representatives on whether to add title 10 to strengthen the language. This would make the bill much closer to the original LPHI draft. The recent Newsom v. Trump ruling provides precedent. 

From the last Committee Report: 

“Your Committees additionally note that the President, as Commander in Chief, is vested with the authority to deploy Title 10 forces to enforce federal law under the Federal Insurrection Act.  This authority has historically been used to deploy troops to enforce desegregation laws in Southern states, despite the vocal opposition from state governors and local elected officials.  Your Committees believe that these issues raise concerns that merit further consideration and requests further examination by your Committee on Judiciary, should it choose to deliberate on this measure.”

Chairman Austin Martin's Testimony in Response:

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair(s), and distinguished members of the JHA Committee:

Aloha. My name is Austin Martin. I am the original author and proposer of SB2054, the Defend Hawaii Act. I appear before you today not only as an architect but as a proud Hawaiian committed to safeguarding our state’s sovereignty, our National Guard, and the constitutional design of our republic. I strongly urge you to pass SB2054, SD2, HD1 without further weakening amendments. This measure is simple, targeted, and essential. It amends HRS §121-30 to prohibit Hawaii National Guard units—when operating under state control or Title 32 status—from assisting, cooperating with, or providing resources to federal troops, federal law enforcement, or out-of-state National Guard forces deployed within Hawaii if the Governor objects. A narrow carve-out preserves compliance with any truly required federal or state law. Nothing more, nothing less.

This language directly addresses the core problem we have witnessed in real time. The recent Newsom v. Trump litigation in California exposed how federal administrations can attempt to federalize or commandeer National Guard assets for domestic operations—even over a governor’s objection—under statutes like 10 U.S.C. §12406. Hawaii must not wait for a similar crisis on our soil. SB2054 places a clear, procedural safeguard in state law so that our Guard cannot be drawn into adverse domestic deployments against the expressed will of Hawaii’s chief executive. The bill respects every relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent on federalization while leaning into an originalist understanding of the Second Amendment’s Militia Clause. The Framers designed the militia as a state-controlled force “necessary to the security of a free State”—not as a federal instrument for politically controversial operations on American soil. By codifying the Governor’s check at the state level, SB2054 creates a clean statutory record that will support that original constitutional meaning of the 2nd Amendment if ever tested in court.

Critically, this legislation imposes zero new costs on the State of Hawaii. It requires no additional appropriations, no new bureaucracy, and no expansion of state programs. It is a pure limitation on misuse—nothing more. It also poses no risk to federal funding. The Guard’s Title 10 and Title 32 funding streams remain untouched; the bill only governs in-state assistance when the Governor has already objected. Federal dollars for legitimate training, disaster response, and overseas missions continue without interruption.

Opponents may raise “readiness” concerns. That objection does not withstand scrutiny. The Governor’s check will almost never arise in true combat deployments or genuine emergencies. It will arise, if at all, in the narrow class of politically charged domestic disputes where rapid federal deployment is itself the controversy. In those scenarios, a brief procedural safeguard—or even judicial review—protects the public interest far more than it harms readiness. Hawaii’s Guard exists first and foremost to defend Hawaii. Keeping it available for hurricanes, floods, and local security is the highest form of readiness, not the lowest.

We have already seen discussions about reinforcing Title 32 protections in light of the California precedent. If the Committee wishes to make that protection even more explicit, I stand ready to assist. The original vision of SB2054 included measured gubernatorial checks on both Title 32 and Title 10 deployments; the narrower focus of the present bill remains a pragmatic and constitutional step forward. I respectfully suggest maintaining these original elements to strengthen and balance this bill: 

Suggested Targeted Amendments 

To fully achieve SB2054’s goal of protecting state sovereignty, we recommend the Committee add the following exact wording in two places:

1. Add the following definition to the definitions section:

   1. “Federal deployment” means any activation of the Hawaii National Guard under Title 10 or Title 32 of the United States Code, including in-state or out-of-state missions which are executed by or under federal authority.”

2. Add the following core restriction as a new subsection in the operative provisions (right after the current language on HRS §121-30):

   1. “No unit or member of the Hawaii National Guard shall be deployed for federal service, whether in-state or out-of-state, under Title 10 or Title 32 of the United States Code, unless: 

      1. “The U.S. Federal Government provides constitutional authorization; or The Governor of Hawaii provides express written consent, following consultation with the Hawaii State Legislature.”

These targeted additions form the constitutional backbone that turns a procedural measure into a robust shield. Chair Tarnas and members, SB2054 is not radical. It is restorative. It restores the constitutional balance the Framers intended between federal and state authority over the militia. It protects our Guard from being commandeered into missions that Hawai‘i’s elected leadership has already rejected. And it does so at no cost, with no risk to federal funding, and without impairing legitimate national defense. I respectfully ask for your “Ayes” on SB2054, HD1. Let us send a clear message: Hawaii will defend Hawaii.

Mahalo nui loa for your time and service. I am happy to answer any questions.

Respectfully submitted,  

Austin Martin  

Libertarian Party of Hawaii — State Chair

Libertarian National Committee — Region 1 Member

Original Author and Proposer, SB2054 – Defend Hawaii Act

Help Us Defend Hawaii

Track and testify on the bill to make sure the Defend Hawaii Act becomes law. Thank you to all who have already contacted their representatives and submitted testimony. This initiative has been the biggest by far in terms of both activism and support that our party has seen in the last few years. It is success stories like these that highlight the impact of both the work of LPHI, and the voice of the individual. 

Become an Official Member

Donate Once or Recurring