WA governor calls U.S. House Medicaid cuts ‘dire,’ vows to fight

Some Democrats in Olympia think employees should have more representation on REI’s board of directors. 

House Bill 1635, sponsored by state Rep. Cindy Ryu, a Democrat from Shoreline, would require any Washington-based consumer cooperative with more than 2,500 employees to reserve two seats on its board of directors for people who work at the co-op. 

The bill doesn’t mention REI by name, but in an interview with Cascade PBS and KNKX last month, Ryu acknowledged that the bill is directed at the outdoor retail company. She wasn’t aware of any other co-ops in Washington it would apply to. (PCC, a large local grocery co-op, has about 1,800 employees, according to a 2024 financial report.) 

Unionized workers at the REI store in Bellingham requested the bill. The Bellingham store is one of 11 REI stores nationwide that have voted to unionize since 2022. None of the unions have reached a contract yet with the company.

REI members vote on board candidates in annual elections. Any REI member is able to nominate themselves to run for a board seat, but bylaw changes in the early 2000s gave the existing board final say over who appears on the ballot. The board’s bylaws also prohibit employees from running for board seats. Unionized workers say the process has grown undemocratic and left them without a voice. 

Several REI employees testified in favor of the bill at a public hearing on Wednesday. 

“REI used to take workers’ experiences into account when making business decisions and every day people used to serve on the board,” said Andrew Soderquist, an REI employee in Seattle. “Now there are no meaningful avenues to share our perspectives or give feedback.” 

Soderquist added that he was shocked to see the REI board recently sign onto a letter supporting U.S Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, a Trump-administration appointee and former governor of North Dakota, who has faced criticism from environmental activists and REI members over his close ties to the fossil fuel industry and a recent order paving the way for oil and natural gas drilling on public lands.

REI responded to members’ criticisms about Burgum this week, saying the co-op had signed the letter “in acknowledgement of his work to champion outdoor recreation, the link between health and nature, and establish the Office of Outdoor Recreation in North Dakota.” The company said it disagreed with his recent order regarding drilling on natural lands, and called on members to sign a petition in opposition.  

An REI spokesperson told Cascade PBS and KNKX that the company did not have a comment on HB 1635. 

Michael Hutchings, a Washington business lawyer who advises corporations and cooperatives on governance, testified against the bill on Wednesday. 

“While this bill may have an admirable goal of elevating employee perspectives to the board, mandating through legislation employee board seats is fundamentally flawed and will create significant problems,” Hutchings said, speaking as an individual. 

Hutchings said he’s concerned that the bill will set a “dangerous precedent” by targeting one specific company and sending a message to other businesses that lawmakers in Washington are willing to “legislatively interfere” in a labor dispute. He also worried that employees who sit on the board would open themselves to conflict-of-interest concerns.  

Unionized REI employees recruited two pro-labor candidates to run in this year’s board of directors election: Shemona Moreno, a Seattle activist who leads the climate nonprofit 350 Seattle, and Tefere Gebre, the chief program officer at Greenpeace and former AFL-CIO executive vice president. 

It’s unclear if either of the union-backed candidates will appear on the ballots this spring. An REI spokesperson said the company never received an application from Moreno, even though Moreno shared a screenshot that appears to show her emailing the board her application material before the deadline. 

The REI board met on Feb. 3 to decide which self-nominated candidates to allow on the ballot. The candidate slate won’t be made public until March 3. In anticipation of Moreno and Gebre being left off the ballot, the REI union is urging members to vote No on whomever the board puts forward. 

Moreno testified in favor of the proposed bill on Wednesday. 

“I was shocked to learn that REI banned workers from the board and still hasn’t reached a fair contract with employees,” Moreno said. “I believe large co-ops should have workers on their boards to make sure they stay true to their founding values.” 

A spokesperson for Rep. Ryu said in an email that if the co-op bill isn’t voted out of executive session next week, it is likely dead for the session.

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday temporarily paused President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to stop federal funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care for young people.

The temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King is the second on this issue in as many days. On Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a 14-day nationwide pause in a case brought by several transgender youth along with parents and advocacy groups.

This case was filed last week by Washington, Oregon and Minnesota, along with three anonymous doctors representing themselves and their patients. 

In granting the order, King said Trump’s order likely won’t withstand “constitutional scrutiny.”

Late last month, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order states “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another.”

Trump’s order seeks to end grants to hospitals and medical schools providing gender-affirming care to people under age 19. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown argues the order is unconstitutional in several ways. 

In court filings, the states have said the order violates the 10th Amendment by trying to regulate medical care in the states, as well as the equal protection guarantee against discrimination in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

King repeatedly pressed the Trump administration’s attorney, Vinita Andrapalliyal, to explain what treatments covered in the executive order apply to both transgender and cisgender people. Andrapalliyal couldn’t provide one. 

The judge, who former President Joe Biden nominated for the bench in 2021, went on to push Andrapalliyal to answer numerous other questions about the meaning of the executive order. The attorney couldn’t answer them.

“You’re not answering my questions,” King said. “This is extremely frustrating.”

The states say cutting off federal funding could be devastating. For example, UW Medicine provides gender-affirming care and receives $500 million in federal funding each year, according to court documents. This withholding of funding already appropriated by Congress would also violate the separation of powers, the states argued.

Justice Department attorneys counter that the administration hadn’t moved to revoke any funding, so the states’ claims are, in legal parlance, unripe. They also say the executive order directs agencies to act on the president’s order “consistent with applicable law,” so the order can’t be construed as a directive to violate the law.

Care for gender dysphoria in youth can include puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery. Trump has long argued, with little evidence, that young people regret transitioning. 

The order stoked confusion in hospitals across the country. The plaintiffs cite a White House press release stating the order was “already having its intended effect” as “hospitals around the country are taking action to downsize or eliminate their so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ programs.”

In Washington, Seattle Children’s reportedly postponed gender-affirming surgeries for trans youth after the president’s Jan. 28 order.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Brown thanked his staff “who demonstrated, once again, that this president of the United States is not above the law.”

“I want to encourage all of the providers in this state, in the state of Oregon and the state of Minnesota who also joined this effort to get back to work to continue to provide the medically necessary care for their children,” the attorney general added.

This is one of several orders Trump has signed targeting the transgender community. Others aim to ban trans women from playing women’s sports, prohibit transgender people from serving in the military and order incarcerated trans women be transferred to men’s prisons. He has also declared the federal government would recognize only two sexes.

King, the first Native American federal judge in Washington state, issued Friday’s order in front of a courtroom packed with observers wearing trans flag stickers. Applause broke out in the room. 

This is the second temporary restraining order Washington has won against a Trump order in federal court in Seattle. Last month, Judge John Coughenour issued a similar ruling in a case against Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, calling the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

These two cases will likely follow a similar path. 

The states will ask for a permanent preliminary injunction to last throughout the proceedings. Coughenour issued such an injunction last week in the birthright case. 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the majority of which are Democratic appointees, would decide on appeals. From there, the case would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump appointed three of the justices. 

The Justice Department appealed Coughenour’s approval of the preliminary injunction in the birthright citizenship case, so that case is for now in the appellate court’s hands.

A hearing on a preliminary injunction in the gender-affirming care case would be set for Feb. 28.

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Feb. 14, 2025.

Some workers in Burien might soon see their paychecks increase. 

Measure 1, a citizen initiative to expand Burien’s minimum wage policy, was leading after the second round of ballot counting on Wednesday with 55% of voters in support. 

If it passes, Measure 1 will replace a minimum wage policy recently adopted by the Burien City Council with a new version that increases the number of businesses required to pay a full minimum wage. 

The City Council’s law raised the wage floor to $21.16 when it went into effect at the start of this year. But initiative supporters argued that the city’s law didn’t represent a true wage increase because it came with a number of exceptions that allowed some businesses to continue paying less — for instance, those with small staffs and ones where employees get tips. 

Measure 1 would remove many of those exemptions. It would also tie Burien’s minimum wage to that of the neighboring jurisdiction of Tukwila, where the wage cap is currently $21.10 and set to increase with inflation. 

“It just means that more people in our community are going to make a better living wage,” Jennifer Fichamba, a Burien resident who helped lead the Measure 1 campaign, said in an interview last week. 

The initiative to get Measure 1 on the ballot was led by the Transit Riders Union, a progressive advocacy group that in recent years has led successful campaigns to raise the wage floor in nearby jurisdictions like SeaTac and Tukwila. Many business owners opposed the initiative, supporting the City Council’s law and arguing that the exemptions were necessary to protect small employers. 

The City Council’s law allows businesses to count an employee’s tips and benefits toward an employee’s total wage. It also allows businesses with fewer than 20 employees working within King County to continue paying a wage as low as the state’s $16.66 minimum. 

Measure 1 will remove the carveout for tips and benefits. It will also change how business sizes are calculated: “Small” businesses with fewer than 15 employees total (not just in King County) will pay $18.10 an hour, and “medium” businesses with 15 to 499 employees will pay $19.10 an hour. Businesses with more than 500 employees will pay the full $21.10. There will be a gradual phase-in; by 2031, businesses of all sizes in Burien will be held to the same wage standard. 

Measure 1 would also expand an employee’s right to take private legal action if they believe their employer isn’t compliant, and create a new rule that says businesses have to offer available hours to existing employees before hiring new ones. 

The idea of raising the wage may also be a topic in Olympia this year. A group of House Democrats are backing House Bill 1764, which would raise the state’s minimum wage by $1.50 each year until it reaches $25 by the start of 2031.

With just a few days remaining before the Feb. 11 special election, some of Seattle’s most prominent businesses are spending big to oppose a new tax to fund social housing.  

The People for Responsible Social Housing PAC has raised more than $434,000 and spent more than $515,000 opposing Proposition 1A and supporting Proposition 1B, according to data from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. The bulk of the spending has been on campaign mailers along with other digital advertising.  

Microsoft and Amazon each contributed $100,000. The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce gave $35,000 in cash and $5,400 through in-kind services. T-Mobile, timber company Weyerhaeuser, Puget Sound Energy, Alaska Airlines and the Seattle Kraken ownership group contributed $5,000-$20,000 as well.  

Voters must go through a two-step process to decide if and how to fund social housing, a form of mixed-income, publicly owned affordable housing. They must first vote Yes or No on whether to fund social housing at all. They then choose between Prop 1A or Prop 1B.  

If passed, Prop 1A would levy a 5% “excess compensation” tax on employer payroll expenses for each Seattle-based employee paid over $1 million in annual compensation. Employers would pay a 5% tax on any dollar over $1 million in total employee compensation.  

The tax would generate an estimated $50 million a year that would go to the newly created Seattle Social Housing Developer to pay for construction of housing meant for lower-income to upper-middle-income residents. Higher-income residents would pay higher rents, which would help subsidize the lower rents paid by lower-income residents.  

Seattle voters approved the creation of the Seattle Social Housing Developer in the February 2023 election, which had been put on the ballot through a citizens’ initiative led by advocate group House Our Neighbors. The same group collected signatures to put the excess compensation tax to a vote this Feb. 11.  

The Let’s Build Social Housing PAC has raised more than $239,000 this year to support Prop 1A, with $125,000 from the Inatai Foundation and $60,000 from Participatory Budgeting Oregon. Labor unions IBEW Local 46 and UFCW 3000 contributed, along with advocacy orgs and nonprofits such as 350 Seattle and Washington Community Action Network. Almost half of the 2025 contributions came from individual donors. The PAC raised more than $353,000 in 2024 during the campaign to get 1A on the ballot, 87% of which came from individual contributors.  

In September, the Seattle City Council voted to place a competing measure on the ballot. 

Instead of creating a new tax, Prop 1B draws from the existing Jumpstart payroll tax. It also caps the income limits for social-housing residents at a lower level than outlined in the Seattle Social Housing Developer charter voters approved in 2023.   

Seattle’s Chamber of Commerce has led the campaign against creating a new business tax with Prop 1A. The Chamber has called into question the Social Housing Developer’s ability to handle $50 million a year in revenue, since the newly created organization currently has only one staff member and a volunteer board of directors. Up to 5% of revenue from either Prop 1A or Prop 1B could be used for the developer’s administrative costs, including staffing.  

New polling from the Northwest Progressive Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that voters are nearly evenly split between Props 1A and 1B, with 33% preferring 1A, 31% preferring 1B and 17% not sure.  

Ballots must be returned before 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 11. 

Washington State University appointed Elizabeth Cantwell as its 12th president on Thursday, Feb. 6. Her term will begin on April 1. Kirk Schulz, president since 2016, will step down on March 30, but stay on through June as a senior advisor to support the transition. 

The WSU Board of Regents unanimously selected Cantwell out of 260 candidates, according to the campus news release. She will be the school’s first woman President.

Cantwell currently serves as president of Utah State University, a post she’s held since August 2023. According to the WSU press release, during her brief tenure, sponsored research expenditures at the school reached a high $495 million, student scholarships increased by 10%, and she oversaw numerous campus infrastructure improvements. But The Salt Lake Tribune describes her tenure as “embattled,” as she navigated the school through numerous high-profile incidents.

Before that, Cantwell was the chief executive officer of Arizona State University Research Enterprise, where she grew the organization from $425 million to $680 million in three years. At the University of Arizona, she oversaw an $825 million annual research portfolio. 

“I am deeply honored by the trust the Board of Regents has placed in me to lead this incredible institution,” Cantwell said in the news release. “To be selected to lead this esteemed institution as its 12th president is a profound privilege. I’ve long admired Washington State University, and a couple of years ago my family’s connection to the university deepened when my daughter became a Coug, enrolling in one of WSU’s graduate programs. This opportunity to serve WSU as president is truly a dream come true!”

A federal judge in Seattle locked in an injunction Thursday that stops a Trump administration attempt to deny birthright citizenship to kids born in the United States to undocumented parents. 

Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order that lasted 14 days. Thursday’s injunction stops Trump’s executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented parents until the case is resolved or a higher court overrules Coughenour.  

The judge slammed Trump’s executive order, saying it is obviously unconstitutional. “It’s become more apparent that the rule of law is an impediment to his goals,” Coughenour said.  

He said the only legal way to remove birthright citizenship is through changing the 14th Amendment. 

“This reminds the country that we don’t have a king. We have a president,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said after the hearing.  

State Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola told Coughenour at Thursday’s hearing that Trump is arguing that “some people who are born here are less than other.” The 14th Amendment’s purpose “is to protect our citizens from inflamed political passions,” added Matt Adams, an attorney for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the state’s ally in the litigation.  

Federal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign’s counter-argument is that birthright citizenship applies only to people subject to American legal jurisdiction, noting that tribes in the 19th century were not covered by the 14th Amendment, and had to have their citizenship nailed down in a law passed shortly afterwards. He argued that children of undocumented citizens fell into this category. 

“It’s a strange legal theory not supported by the Supreme Court,” Brown said. 

The 14th Amendment, which was created after the abolition of slavery following the Civil War, begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  

The Migration Policy Institute, which advocates for immigration and integration policies, estimates that Washington had about 250,000 undocumented immigrants as of 2019. About 38% of those families have at least one U.S. citizen child under 18. The group did not have information about adult U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants. 

The Washington Post said it is unclear how many U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are in the United States or are born each year. About 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 were estimated to be living with an undocumented parent in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew estimated that at least 1.3 million adults have parents who are undocumented, though it noted the method of data collection for that statistic was likely incomplete. 

Right now, there are two parallel challenges to Trump’s executive order. 

Washington is leading a coalition of Oregon, Arizona and Illinois in challenging the order in federal court in Seattle. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project is also part of this lawsuit, representing two expecting mothers — Honduran Cherly Norales and El Salvadoran Alicia Chavarria, both living in Seattle — and a proposed class including pregnant people in Washington who would be impacted by the president’s order. 

Eighteen other states are pursuing a similar lawsuit in federal court in Maryland. The U.S. District Court judge in Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman, granted a similar injunction on Wednesday. The two lawsuits will proceed independently.  

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard. 

President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Joe Kent, a former Army Special Forces soldier and two-time Republican candidate for a congressional seat in southwest Washington, to be director of the National Counterterrorism Center. 

“As a soldier, Green Beret, and CIA officer, Joe has hunted down terrorists and criminals his entire adult life,” Trump wrote on X. “Joe will help us keep America safe by eradicating all terrorism, from the jihadists around the World, to the cartels in our backyard.” 

A short time later, Kent responded on the social media platform. 

“It’s an honor to serve our nation again, time to keep our nation safe & strong!” he wrote. 

Trump’s announcement comes three months after Kent lost a second bid for a U.S. House seat to Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez. 

The first run came in 2022. Kent, an ardent Trump supporter, beat incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd Congressional District primary. He and other conservative Republicans targeted Herrera Beutler for her vote to impeach Trump in 2021. 

But that fall, Kent couldn’t hold the seat for Republicans, losing to Gluesenkamp Pérez, a relative unknown, by 2,629 votes in what was considered one of the biggest upsets of that year’s elections. 

In their rematch in November, Gluesenkamp Pérez beat Kent by 16,000 votes. 

Kent is an Oregon native. He grew up in Portland and at 18 enlisted in the U.S. Army. He had 11 combat deployments and served as a Ranger and Special Forces soldier. He has a degree in strategic studies and defense analysis from Norwich University. In 2020 he served as a foreign affairs advisor to the Trump campaign. 

In 2019 his wife, Shannon Kent, a Navy cryptologic technician, was killed by an Islamic State group suicide bomber in northeastern Syria. Kent remarried in 2023 and lives in Yacolt.  

Kent would lead an agency founded in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and tasked with gathering and analyzing information to help thwart terrorism. He would oversee a staff of more than 1,000 people and answer to the director of national intelligence. 

The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation. 

During his 2022 run for Congress, Kent drew scrutiny for links to far-right groups and his embrace of election conspiracy theories. 

“He’s a destructive choice to lead the National Counterterrorism Center,” Washington state Democratic Party chair Shasti Conrad said in a statement on Monday. “Someone who called for defunding the FBI and promotes conspiracy theories cannot be trusted with our national security.” 

Washington state Republican Party chair Jim Walsh applauded Trump’s selection of Kent. “Excellent news!” he posted on social media. 

The Washington State Standard originally published this story Feb. 3, 2025. 

The University of Washington Board of Regents announced Monday that Robert J. Jones will become the 34th President of the University of Washington. Jones, ending a nine-year tenure as Chancellor of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, will begin his five-year contract on August 1. 

Jones will become the first African American to serve in the role, according to the UW. 

“I look forward to working with the UW’s talented and dedicated faculty and staff to support and accelerate their work, and to partnering with the UW’s supporters to advance students’ success, economic opportunity and discovery for the public good,” Jones wrote in the announcement. 

President Ana Mari Cauce announced last year that she would step down from the role she held for a decade.

“His inspiring and barrier- breaking personal journey, highly regarded scholarship and decades of transformative leadership convinced us that Chancellor Jones is the ideal person to build upon President Ana Mari Cauce’s legacy,” Board of Regents Chair Blaine Tamaki said in the announcement. 

Jones, who has served at the University of Illinois since 2016, said his priorities include focusing on affordability for students and making education accessible. 

He also served as the President of the University at Albany from 2013-2016, which will make his UW presidency his third post leading a public research university. At Albany, he added academic units and degree-granting programs and expanded faculty research opportunities and student learning. 

The Seattle City Council is creating a new committee to respond to the volley of executive orders from President Donald Trump that have the potential to impact everything from federal grants to immigrant communities to LGBTQ+ rights.  

Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposed creating the Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes on Jan. 31.  

“Many organizations, programs and people within Seattle rely on federal funding to carry out their work and live healthy lives,” wrote Rinck in a press statement. “What is clear is that major changes are underway on the federal front, and local leaders must be tuned in.” 

Rinck cited a lengthy list of local issues that could be impacted by the loss of federal money, including housing, public safety, transportation, emergency and disaster aid, climate change, public health, human and social services, immigration, nutrition, economic development, small businesses and education. 

Council President Sara Nelson circulated a memo on Jan. 31 to create the committee.  

“It’s my responsibility as an elected official and as Seattle City Council President to make sure every one of my constituents feels safe, particularly our most vulnerable communities who are being targeted by the onslaught of executive orders on a daily basis. We’re all seeing the chaos and uncertainty in Washington, D.C. but we’re focused on stability here,” Nelson wrote in a press statement. 

Select committees like the one proposed by Rinck comprise all nine Council members and are meant to focus more sharply on an issue such as the city budget. They take up early versions of legislation to discuss and amend before bills head to a full City Council meeting for a final vote. 

The Council expects to hold the first meeting of the Select Committee on Federal Administration and Policy Changes in early March.

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

As the Trump administration pursues its hard-line immigration agenda, Democratic lawmakers in Washington are trying to take steps to protect immigrant communities in the state. 

Rep. Sharlett Mena is sponsoring House Bill 1321, which would limit other states’ National Guard troops from deploying in Washington without the governor’s permission — unless they are mobilized by the president. 

“I think the last thing we want to see is folks feeling scared in their communities or feeling like they’re going to get rounded up at work or at school,” Mena said. 

The bill is a response to 26 Republican governors releasing a joint statement in December saying they were “ready to utilize every tool at our disposal — whether through state law enforcement or the National Guard” to support President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. 

“It is my concern that there would be other states wanting to enforce federal immigration law,” Mena said. 

In recent years, states have sent their National Guard troops to other states to support immigration enforcement. 

Two months after former President Joe Biden took office, Texas launched “Operation Lone Star,” aimed at increasing security along the state’s section of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The program, which has cost more than $11 billion to date, has used federal funds and the Texas National Guard. But multiple Republican states, like Florida and Montana, have used their own budgets to send National Guard troops to support Texas. 

The National Guard is a state-based military force when not activated for federal service and is under the command of the state governor and the president of the United States. Some states also have State Guards, which are under state control.

The National Guard operates under three statuses. Under “state active duty” the Guard is under control of the governor in the state where it’s based. Under “Title 10 status” it is under the control of the president and temporarily becomes part of the federal armed forces. And under “Title 32 status” the National Guard is under control of the governor but may perform certain duties specified by Congress or missions requested by the president. 

This bill would only prevent the National Guard from entering Washington when it is being operated under state active duty and Title 32 status. It would not affect Title 10 status, in which a president calls on the National Guard for an operation. 

It would also not prevent the state military from training or readiness or impede the ability of the National Guard to provide support during an emergency or natural disaster. 

Many states, including Republican strongholds like Texas, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma, already have laws on the books that are similar to the proposal Mena is pushing.  

“I actually don’t think it has to be a partisan issue, because the political winds and the other Washington change so frequently that other states have seen the need for this,” Mena said. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson supports the bill, highlighting it in his inaugural address earlier this month. Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for the governor’s office, testified in support during a House committee hearing Wednesday, saying the bill is a necessary precautionary measure. 

House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, has highlighted the bill as a proactive measure the state could take in response to Trump-era policies. 

But Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, a member of the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee and also state Republican Party chair, described the bill as a solution in search of a problem. He doesn’t see a scenario where it’s needed.

“The important thing is it doesn’t affect the federalization of the National Guard,” Walsh said. “If the president decided there (was an) immigration enforcement crisis and nationalized Guard units, then they could be implemented at the border if that ever happened.”

“This bill wouldn’t prevent that,” he said.

Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero is a WSU Murrow Fellow at the Washington State Standard. The Washington State Standard originally published this story on Jan. 30, 2025.