by Shaanth Nanguneri, Oregon Capital Chronicle
February 5, 2026
An Oregon Republican who backed a Democrat-led bill restricting the deployment of the state’s National Guard and other states’ troops to Oregon has revoked his support.
Rep. Alek Skarlatos, R-Winston and a member of the House Emergency Management and Veterans Committee, was listed as a sponsor of House Bill 4091 ahead of a Tuesday committee hearing on the legislation.
By Thursday morning, his name was no longer online next to the two dozen Oregon Democrats who have sponsored the legislation, making the bill yet another solely Democratic priority in the packed short legislative session.
“It basically doesn’t sound like the bill has any teeth,” Skarlatos told the Capital Chronicle on Thursday. “To be totally honest with you, if I’m going to be on a bill, I want it to actually do something. It sounds like it was basically just an anti-Trump messaging bill for the Democrats, and if it actually had teeth in reining in the National Guard, I probably would have stayed on.”
Oregon lawmakers had attempted to push through a narrower version of the legislation last year, but it died in the Senate due to procedural moves from Republicans that ran out the clock at the end of the legislative session. Supporters of the new legislation have hoped it would gain more steam in light of President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy Oregon and other states’ troops to Portland. Several states, including Texas, Idaho and North Dakota, have laws on the books that mandate state approval or a president’s authority to have another state’s National Guard enter their state.
This year’s bill would block the Oregon National Guard from providing federal law or immigration enforcement except for “indirect support or surveillance duties that are part of a border security operation.” It would prevent the state’s adjutant general from allowing National Guard members to be called into active service if it would leave the guard incapable of responding to statewide emergencies like wildfires or an act of terrorism. The bill would also prevent troops from another state’s National Guard from entering Oregon without the governor’s consent if they were not mobilized under the president’s existing authority.
“It simply tries to clarify in big bold lines that where the federal government has declared it, we’re going to declare it too,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, told his colleagues Tuesday. “So if somebody tries to move the goal post later, everybody knows where we put the line down.”
Skarlatos had voiced some of his concerns on Tuesday with the bill, which would not undo the president’s authority to use the National Guard under the Insurrection Act or in the case of a rebellion or inability to execute laws. He questioned how the bill would be enforced should another state’s troops attempt to enter the state without Oregon’s consent, and what would happen should the adjutant general disobey a governor’s assessment.
Evans responded that the governor, who is able to appoint the adjutant general, could determine whether to fire them. Legislative counsel has suggested that the scenarios the bill could lead to involve armed conflict as a “worst case scenario” or lawsuits in the federal court system.
Multiple Republicans on Tuesday, meanwhile, raised questions about whether the bill would face legal challenges, as well as whether it was the right time to weigh in on a matter that is currently up for debate in federal court. A hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over a federal judge’s order permanently blocking Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Portland is set for June. The U.S. Supreme Court in December, however, blocked Trump’s push to deploy the National Guard to Chicago.
One constitutional law expert appeared sympathetic to Skarlatos’ assessment. Norman Williams, professor of law at Willamette University, told the Capital Chronicle that he saw value in restricting other states’ deployment of troops to Oregon, but argued that was now less likely of a scenario than the president invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in the Marines. If that matter went to court, the legislation wouldn’t make any difference, he said.
“I’m not sure what the state hopes to accomplish with this anymore,” he wrote in an email. “After the SCOTUS decision, it’s clear that the Trump administration would have to use regular military (Army, Marines, etc.) rather than National Guard troops, even federalized ones, for federal law enforcement purposes.”
Although the bill received a public hearing on Tuesday, it does not yet have a committee work session scheduled as of Thursday afternoon. Lawmakers have until Feb. 15 to send bills they want to pass by the end of the 35-day short legislative session out of committee and onto their chamber’s floor.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: [email protected].