H.R.4042 - States Taking Accountability for Troops Engaged in Safety Act; STATES Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.4042, the STATES Act, proposes that states reimburse the federal government for National Guard deployments within their borders under specific circumstances. This bill amends Section 12406 of Title 10, United States Code, allowing the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Secretary of the Treasury to determine costs incurred by the federal government due to National Guard deployments. Reimbursement is required if the President determines the deployment resulted from a state government's action or negligence. The act includes a waiver provision for extreme financial hardship or when the deployment protects federal property or enforces federal law and takes effect retroactively on June 1, 2025.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be to shift the financial burden of certain National Guard deployments from the federal government to state governments. This could incentivize states to exercise greater caution and oversight to avoid actions that might necessitate National Guard deployment. It could also strain state budgets, potentially impacting other state-funded programs.
Potential Benefits
- Increased State Accountability: States may become more responsible in their actions, knowing they could face financial consequences for needing National Guard deployment.
- Potential Federal Savings: The federal government could save money if states are required to reimburse deployment costs.
- Targeted Waivers: The waiver provision allows flexibility in cases of genuine hardship or when federal interests are paramount.
- Incentivizes Proactive Measures: States might invest more in preventative measures to avoid costly National Guard deployments.
- Clarifies Financial Responsibility: Establishes a clear framework for determining financial responsibility in specific deployment scenarios.
Potential Disadvantages
- Financial Strain on States: Requiring reimbursement could severely strain state budgets, especially during crises.
- Disincentive for Seeking Federal Assistance: States might hesitate to request National Guard assistance, even when needed, due to cost concerns.
- Potential for Political Disputes: Presidential determinations of state negligence could become highly politicized.
- Implementation Challenges: Determining the precise costs attributable to state actions could be complex and contentious.
- Unequal Burden: States with fewer resources may be disproportionately affected by the reimbursement requirement.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and to govern such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. The proposed legislation appears to operate within this framework by setting conditions for federal reimbursement. However, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and the bill's financial mandates could be viewed as an infringement on state sovereignty, particularly if the definition of 'negligence' is overly broad or politically motivated.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).