STATES Act

Bill Number

H.R. 4042

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Armed Forces and National Security

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-06-17: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Last Updated

2025-07-17T15:29:20Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The STATES Act (H.R. 4042) aims to hold states financially accountable for certain federal deployments of the National Guard by requiring reimbursement to the federal government when such deployments result from state government actions or negligence. It seeks to ensure that states bear the costs of situations they create that necessitate federal intervention.

Key Provisions

• Authority for Federal Call-Up of National Guard: Retains and clarifies the President's existing power to call National Guard members or units from any state into federal service in cases of invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce federal laws using regular forces. Orders must go through state governors (or the D.C. commanding general).
• Reimbursement Requirement: If the President determines within 30 days after the end of the deployment that it was due to an "action or act of negligence" by the state government, the federal government must calculate the full costs incurred. The President then directs the Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of the Treasury and others to reduce federal funds to that state by 100% of those costs, after notifying the governor.
• Waiver Option: The President can waive the reimbursement if the state faces extreme financial hardship or if the deployment mainly involves protecting federal property or enforcing federal laws.
• Implementation: The Secretary of Defense may issue regulations to carry out these rules.
• Effective Date: The law applies retroactively from June 1, 2025, to all relevant National Guard deployments afterward.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill amends Section 12406 of Title 10, U.S. Code, which previously only outlined the President's authority to call up the National Guard without any financial accountability for states. The key addition is subsection (b), introducing a reimbursement mechanism tied to presidential findings of state negligence—a new fiscal penalty not present in the original law. Subsections (c) and (d) provide waivers and regulatory flexibility, also novel elements.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Defense and Treasury would need to collaborate on cost calculations and fund reductions, potentially increasing administrative workload. States could face direct cuts to federal aid, affecting budgets for education, infrastructure, or disaster relief.
• On Citizens: Residents in affected states might indirectly experience reduced public services due to fund cuts, though waivers could mitigate this in hardship cases. National Guard members' deployments remain unchanged, but states might alter policies to avoid triggering reimbursements.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic scenarios like invasions or rebellions; however, it could influence how states handle border or foreign-related threats without federal cost burdens.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• States and Governors: Primary targets, as they could lose federal funds and must respond to presidential determinations of negligence.
• Federal Government (Executive Branch): The President, Department of Defense, and Treasury gain new tools for cost recovery but must make subjective determinations on state fault.
• National Guard Personnel: Indirectly affected through deployment processes, though their service terms and pay are unaltered.
• U.S. Taxpayers: Benefit from potential federal cost savings via reimbursements, reducing overall national spending on Guard activations.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Introduces a mechanism for the President to unilaterally assess state "negligence," which could lead to disputes over definitions and evidence, potentially resulting in lawsuits challenging the process as arbitrary or vague. The retroactive effective date might raise questions about applying new rules to past events.
• Constitutional Implications: Touches on federalism (the balance of power between federal and state governments) by allowing federal fund reductions as a penalty, which some might argue resembles coercive spending conditions under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. It does not alter core National Guard authorities under Article I, Section 8.
• Political Implications: Could incentivize states to prevent situations requiring federal Guard intervention, promoting accountability, but might be viewed as punitive or an overreach into state affairs, potentially heightening partisan tensions in federal-state relations, especially in areas like civil unrest or law enforcement.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]

Cosponsors (3)

Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham J. [R-AZ-8], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]

Recent Actions

• 2025-06-17: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
• 2025-06-17: Introduced in House
• 2025-06-17: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• States Taking Accountability for Troops Engaged in Safety Act — issued 2025-06-17 — PDF (4 pages)