Gov. Josh Green will require a briefing on the circumstances and the “true need” of a federal request to activate the Hawaii National Guard before considering the deployment of soldiers for any law enforcement duties like President Donald Trump’s effort to carry out the largest mass deportation of illegal immigrants in U.S. history.
“Governor Green carefully considers all requests to activate the Hawaii National Guard, which can be made for specific crises. Though like other Governors, he feels the guard is most appropriately used for local state crises, guided by that state’s Governor,” Makana McClellan, Green’s communications director, told the Honolulu Star- Advertiser in a statement.
Activation decisions in natural disasters are easier to make, as guard members are our family members and neighbors, who are eager to serve in various ways to assist their communities needing help, McClellan said.
“Should federal authorities request activation of the National Guard, which should almost never happen, the Governor will require a full briefing on the circumstances and the true need, prior to even considering the deployment of Hawaii Guard members for any law enforcement duties,” McClellan said.
In June, Green was one of 22 governors who issued a joint statement that called Trump’s reaction to protests against deportation “an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state’s governor is ineffective and dangerous.”
Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez was one of 18 attorneys general who issued a statement that called Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard “unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic.”
Don’t miss out on what’s happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It’s FREE!
Lt. Col. Lloyd C. Phelps, the Hawaii National Guard’s attorney, told state lawmakers at an informational briefing Monday that he read through Trump’s executive order in California and “looking at the way they worded that … I didn’t see anything in there where they were expressing allowing the guard to perform police functions. … He said in that case, the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, took control of the guard to support law enforcement.
“I don’t believe the guard … was participating in search-and-seizure arrests,” said Phelps, who noted they guarded federal courthouses and provided logistical support. “We just can’t operate doing the traditional law enforcement-type things. That’s kind of what I understand happened in California.”
Phelps noted the National Guard is federally funded and under state control. Green would have to consent to use the National Guard to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Hawaii, to send units to other states for the same duty, or allow units from other states to come to Hawaii to help ICE with immigration enforcement.
“The big takeaway … (Title 32 call-ups) doesn’t happen without gubernatorial consent. What you see going on in the state of Texas now where you’ve got certain guards from certain states coming into Texas and supporting ICE operations, those were all done with the express consent (of the governors involved.”
“If something were to come down the pike along those lines, it would take Governor Green’s consent,” Phelps said.
Under state law in Hawaii, the National Guard is barred from performing law enforcement functions.
“If anybody is activated here they would have to follow state law,” Phelps said.
On Monday, the state House Committee on Public Safety held an informational briefing to provide an overview of National Guard and law enforcement obligations when the federal government asks for help in response to “civil protests and/or situations of civil unrest.”
The briefing is in response to “increasing federal law enforcement actions occurring across the nation” beginning when President Donald Trump took office in January.
Committee Chair Rep. Della Au Belatti and Vice Chair Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto sought to understand the “federalization of National Guard personnel by presidential memoranda on June 7, 2025 in the State of California,” the federal lawsuit by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Gov. Gavin Newsom challenging the executive orders, and Lopez’s response to the deployment of California National Guard personnel without the consent of California.
The committee also wanted to understand how Hawaii state government will respond to future deployments of the National Guard for federal purposes and the role of state law enforcement in ensuring “public safety and exercise of free speech during civil protests.”
Belatti said state lawmakers could help pass laws that clarify how guard members may be used in Hawaii. She cited an Oregon law that outlines how guard members are used in the state and noted similar legislation could help with future litigation
“As you think about litigation strategy, on this side of the table we can make laws … if we craft it in a way that respects the rule of law and our constitutional obligations this is in fact something that we can do,” said Belatti, before asking Lopez for her thoughts on the policy approach.
Since the start of Trump’s administration, Lopez and teams of deputy attorneys general have been coordinating legal counterattacks to “blatantly unconstitutional” efforts to reshape funding for states and how the federal government manages its citizens by filing lawsuits and joining actions seeking preliminary injunctions against Trump’s executive orders.
Lopez told lawmakers that another set of circumstances come into play if Trump orders Major General Stephen F. Logan, adjutant general of the Hawaii Department of Defense, to mobilize the guard under a federal Title 10 order things get a “little more
complicated.”
“In that situation our adjutant general is potentially getting a direct order from the President of the United States. Whether or not any law that we pass would … put the brakes on following that order … I think the situation would be relatively limited. I don’t want to come up with hypotheticals …,” she said. “I also think there are potential risks associated with laws that are passed. All of the (Trump’s) EO’s (executive orders) are incredibly broad. They don’t bother to ever define a term. Diversity, equity and inclusion is a great example, nobody knows what that means. … They (Trump administration) have made it clear that they will retaliate. They will threaten loss of funds. … I’m not saying we should back down. … There is a balance.”