Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2025

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Oregon Senate Democrats Push Back on Federalization of National Guard

Raising Questions for Southern Oregon

By John Oliver The political battle over control of Oregon’s National Guard reached a new level this week as Senate Democrats condemned the Trump administration’s decision to federalize the state’s troops and send them into Portland. While the dispute has been centered in the state’s largest city, the consequences of this standoff ripple far beyond the metro area, raising concerns in southern Oregon about the future availability of Guard resources, state sovereignty, and taxpayer costs. In a rare display of unified messaging, Senate Democrats took to the chamber floor to denounce the federalization order. Lawmakers described it as an “abuse of power” and a violation of U.S. law. Senate Majority Leader Kayse Jama framed the move as an attack on Oregon’s ability to govern itself, stressing that it “undermines Oregon’s ability to govern ourselves, disrupts the work of trusted local law enforcement, and wastes taxpayer dollars that should be serving the people of Oregon.” The deployment, justified by the administration as necessary to curb disorder in Portland, has been characterized by state leaders as unnecessary and politically motivated. Portland

Police, according to lawmakers, have reassured state officials that they are fully capable of responding to the protests and sporadic unlawful activity that have occurred outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement federal building. Senator Lisa Reynolds echoed those concerns, stating that “we do not need and we do not want federalized national guard troops deployed in this area.” Her comments reflect a growing sense of frustration that the city’s reputation has been distorted to justify federal intervention. For many in southern Oregon, the immediate question is not about Portland’s protests, but about what federal control means for the

Guard’s availability during local crises. From wildfires in the Rogue Valley to floods along the Applegate and Illinois Rivers, the National Guard has been a critical resource when disaster strikes. Senator Anthony Broadman of Bend, chair of the public safety subcommittee under the Joint Ways and Means Committee, made that connection clear: “These are the same people we count on to mobilize during wildfires and other disasters. Regardless of who is directing their deployment, the Oregon National Guard is made up of Oregonians who are citizen soldiers: neighbors, friends, coworkers, and small business owners.” Southern Oregon residents,

many of whom have lived through devastating fire seasons, know firsthand the value of those Guard deployments. If federalization redirects troops or ties them up in political conflicts elsewhere, local communities may find themselves short-handed when natural disasters strike. The state has already moved to challenge the federal order in court. Over the weekend, Oregon filed a lawsuit against the president’s action, and Attorney General Dan Rayfield sought a temporary restraining order to block deployment. The legal battle centers on whether the White House has the authority to seize command of state troops without the governor’s consent — a dispute that cuts to the heart of state sovereignty. The financial impact is another layer of concern. Mobilizing Guard units comes with a steep price tag, and the question of who pays — Oregon taxpayers or federal agencies — remains unsettled. If costs fall to the state, the expense could compete with other critical needs, from rural infrastructure to education budgets already strained in southern Oregon counties. Beyond logistics and funding, Senate Democrats argue the federalization poses a threat to civil liberties. Senator Khanh Pham warned Oregonians not to be intimidated by what she described as an effort to “sow fear, silence opposition, and turn the city we love into a place where people feel afraid to leave their homes.” Sena-

•

see DEMOCRATS, page 5

Oregon Senate Advances $4.3 Billion Transportation Funding Plan By Ellen Ward The Oregon Senate has taken a major step toward reshaping how the state pays for its roads, bridges, and transit systems. On Monday, lawmakers approved House Bill 3991 by an 18 to 11 margin, setting the stage for one of the most significant updates to transportation funding in more than a decade. The legislation is projected to generate approximately $4.3 billion over the next ten years, largely through increases in existing taxes and fees. Its central aim is to address the growing costs of road maintenance and operations at a time when traditional revenue sources, such as the gas tax, are under pressure from rising fuel efficiency and the slow but steady growth of electric vehicle adoption. Under the new framework, Oregon drivers would see a six-cent increase in the state gas tax. Vehicle owners would also face higher registration fees, with most nearly doubling from current rates. The measure also calls for doubling the state’s payroll tax that supports public transit, moving it from 0.1 percent of wages to 0.2 percent. Electric vehicles, which contribute less to the gas tax system, would be subject to separate fee increases designed to bring their contribution closer to that of gasoline-powered vehicles.

Lawmakers have described the measure as a necessary recalibration of funding sources rather than a dramatic policy shift. For decades, Oregon’s transportation system has relied heavily on gas tax revenue to cover the costs of paving, repairing, and maintaining thousands of miles of highways and county roads. As more efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles reduce fuel consumption, the state’s ability to sustain its infrastructure has weakened, creating shortfalls that cannot be closed without new revenue streams. The bill’s passage comes after months of negotiation and debate about how best to balance the financial needs of transportation

infrastructure with the economic pressures residents already face. The decision to increase fees and taxes was not made lightly, as it directly impacts households across the state. However, proponents argue that without substantial new revenue, Oregon risks falling behind on critical projects that ensure the safety and reliability of its roadways. Beyond maintaining current operations, the legislation also seeks to stabilize funding for public transit agencies that serve urban and rural communities. Doubling the payroll tax is expected to strengthen transit systems that have faced rising costs and fluctuating ridership since the pandemic. Lawmakers

believe this investment is essential for connecting workers to jobs, students to schools, and residents to essential services. For drivers, the immediate impact will be most visible in the cost of filling up at the pump and registering vehicles. Over time, the state anticipates that the increased revenue will reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, prevent further deterioration of highways and bridges, and create a more predictable funding base for future transportation planning. The bill now awaits implementation, and attention will turn to how agencies allocate and manage the new funds. While questions remain about long-term solutions for a transportation system evolving with new technologies and environmental demands, House Bill 3991 marks a pivotal moment in Oregon’s efforts to keep its roads safe and its economy moving.