HB 2293
In CommitteeHouse
Law enf. training/foreign
Prohibiting law enforcement training with certain foreign entities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill prohibits Washington law enforcement agencies—including city and county departments, the State Patrol, and the training commission—from engaging in or funding training, exchanges, or partnerships with foreign military, intelligence, or security services. It also blocks officer travel to foreign countries for such training purposes.
- Prohibits general and limited authority law enforcement agencies in Washington from participating in training programs, exchanges, or partnerships with foreign countries’ military, intelligence, or security services.
- Bars Washington law enforcement agencies from funding, sponsoring, or facilitating officer travel to foreign countries for such training.
- Applies the same restrictions to the Washington State Patrol.
- Bars the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission from developing, administering, incorporating, or facilitating foreign training for peace officers.
- Includes a severability clause so that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest remains in effect.
Who is affected
- Washington law enforcement officers — Law enforcement officers in Washington who may no longer be able to participate in or receive training from foreign military, intelligence, or security entities.
- Washington law enforcement agencies — State and local agencies that may need to revise or cancel existing international training partnerships or budgets related to foreign training.
- Washington State Patrol — The Washington State Patrol, which is specifically prohibited from engaging in or funding foreign training activities under the bill.
- Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission — The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, which must stop incorporating or facilitating foreign training into its programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Reduces risk of Washington law enforcement being involved in or complicit with foreign human rights abuses, torture, or extrajudicial practices that may occur in partner countries—aligning state policy with domestic legal and ethical standards.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1–3 (entire bill)Prevents potential transfer of surveillance technologies or tactics from authoritarian regimes to U.S. law enforcement, mitigating the risk of erosion of civil liberties (e.g., mass surveillance, predictive policing, racial profiling) through foreign model adoption.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1–3 (entire bill)Ensures that if any part of the ban is challenged or struck down on narrow grounds, the core prohibition remains enforceable—protecting against piecemeal weakening of the policy through litigation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (severability clause)May reduce state and local spending on foreign training programs, freeing up limited public funds for domestic training, community outreach, or mental health crisis response—though savings are not quantified and may be offset by increased domestic training costs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact section
Potential Concerns (4)
Reduces access to international best-practice law enforcement training, potentially weakening officer preparedness for transnational crime, counterterrorism, and emerging threats that require cross-border coordination and specialized tactics.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1)Limits opportunities for Washington officers to observe and adopt proven international policing models (e.g., community policing, de-escalation, crisis intervention), which could reduce the quality and effectiveness of local law enforcement responses.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(2)May require local agencies to reallocate limited training budgets to replace previously subsidized foreign programs with more expensive domestic alternatives, straining already tight municipal budgets—especially in smaller or rural jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section (no cost estimate provided)Reduces exposure of Washington peace officers to diverse international training standards and perspectives, potentially narrowing the scope of professional development and limiting the integration of globally recognized best practices into state certification curricula.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)
Who Is Most Affected
May lose access to high-level international counterterrorism and transnational crime training, potentially reducing operational capacity—but gain protection from ethical or legal exposure to abusive foreign practices.
Agencies may need to restructure or cancel existing international partnerships and reallocate budgets, but avoid liability or reputational risk from association with foreign rights abusers.
State Patrol loses access to foreign exchange programs but strengthens its alignment with domestic constitutional norms and avoids entanglement in foreign operations.
Training Commission avoids incorporating potentially problematic foreign curricula but may reduce professional development options for officers seeking advanced credentials.
Communities benefit from reduced risk of imported surveillance tactics and law enforcement practices that could erode civil liberties, especially in marginalized communities already over-policed.