Indiana
Braun administration pushes to enhance National Guard’s policing role during riots
DeWine, Beshear talk government shutdown, national guard, more
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear discuss the current government shutdown, appropriate use of the national guard and more.
The Indiana National Guard wants to enhance some guardsmen’s role as police officers during times of civil unrest, as debates about the military’s role in policing play out nationwide amid President Trump’s deployment of federal forces in Democrat-led cities.
National Guard spokeswoman Lauren Houck confirmed the state is pushing a program that would offer Indiana law enforcement training to military police so those federal troops can “add value,” rather than merely add bodies, when working alongside local police during situations like the 2020 riots. Military police typically enforce federal laws on National Guard property, but governors can call guardsmen out to support local law enforcement and first responders during emergencies.
The Indiana National Guard approached Gov. Mike Braun’s office to make the request for the change. Houck would not say whether this training will give guardsmen broader authority to act as police in Indiana, enforcing local laws and making arrests, or if National Guard leadership just wants its troops to be better prepared for emergencies.
The news come days after IndyStar reported that Statehouse insiders are researching legislation that could grant more policing power to guardsmen in local jurisdictions. While some Republicans push for an expanded role for the National Guard, at least one Democratic lawmaker wary of military intervention in policing has filed legislation to restrict its power.
The new program would ultimately need to be approved by the Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board, the body that creates training requirement for all Indiana police officers. The state’s basic training for new police officers requires more than 600 hours of coursework in criminal and traffic law, emergency vehicle operations, human behavior and de-escalation. It’s unclear how quickly the proposed program would train military police.
“These preliminary discussions have been about creating a fair and efficient process, while ensuring proper certifications and training are in place,” Houck said in a statement.
Houck said the new training has been discussed for months, but the need for it stems from the 2020 protests and riots that swept through Indiana cities after the police killing of George Floyd. At the time, Gov. Eric Holcomb stationed National Guard to defend state property, but their role in actively policing protesters was limited.
Braun said in a statement he supports the new training program because “law enforcement deserves every tool and partner they need to keep Hoosiers safe.”
Braun has so far declined to use the National Guard to intervene in local policing, even after violence in downtown Indianapolis this summer prompted calls by Republicans and the local police union for the state to step in.
But this week the governor showed his willingness to help the Trump administration by agreeing to deploy about 300 National Guard troops to Washington D.C. next month, after the president declared a public emergency over crime in the nation’s capital in August.
Meanwhile, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita earlier this month called for Trump to deploy National Guard troops to address crime in Indianapolis.
What Indiana law says about the National Guard
Trump’s National Guard deployments in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland have been stalled by lawsuits and court rulings, igniting a debate over whether the president is violating federal law that generally bars military troops from doing civilian law enforcement.
Indiana law gives the governor broad authority to call out guardsmen, who are part-time, ad-hoc military members, in extreme situations such as war, invasion, natural disaster and rioting. National Guard troops do not typically enforce local laws or make arrests but rather conduct patrols and provide logistical support to keep the peace.
During a state emergency, however, Indiana law does grant guardsmen some authority to disperse participants in an “unlawful assembly” and arrest those who refuse. Another portion allows guardsmen to arrest someone who knowingly or intentionally enters a street that the National Guard has closed off.
Even when a governor declares an emergency, local officials can challenge their deployment to cities. A Tennessee judge on Nov. 17 temporarily blocked the Republican governor’s deployment of the National Guard in Memphis, ruling that crime rates in the southern city were not a “grave emergency” or “disaster” warranting an emergency response.
Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett has rejected the idea of National Guard intervention in local law enforcement. The mayor noted that criminal homicides and non-fatal shootings in Indianapolis have fallen by roughly 50% after they soared to record highs in 2021, according to IMPD data.
Democrat files legislation to restrict National Guard power
While some state Republicans seek to broaden the National Guard’s power, a state Democrat who works in law enforcement has filed legislation to restrict guardsmen’s ability to enforce laws and make arrests.
State Rep. Mitch Gore, D-Indianapolis, filed House Bill 1015 Nov. 18 to prevent the governor from ordering any National Guard member “to perform any law enforcement duty that may result in the surveillance, apprehension, detention, or arrest of an individual” without formally declaring a state of emergency for one of three situations: “a natural disaster, a riot, or an act of terrorism.”
A captain at the Marion County Sheriff’s Office in his day job, Gore told IndyStar he sees a need for the bill because some Republican state lawmakers have asked his opinion on allowing National Guard troops to function as police officers.
House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, did not respond to a request for comment on his party’s position on enhancing the National Guard’s policing power.
Gore said federal intervention in policing undermines a community’s trust in local law enforcement. He called such action “fundamentally un-American,” invoking the longstanding belief that troops on American streets are a threat to democracy and personal liberty.
“As a cop, I know that it just a practically stupid thing to do to use the Guard in this way,” Gore said. “Modern policing relies ultimately upon a trusting relationship between the public and the police.”
He said deploying guardsmen to Indiana cities without a serious emergency “will make community members feel once again like colonists felt back in the 1700s: like they are subjects to be ruled over by force, rather than we are neighbors all trying to achieve the same goal.”
Email Indianapolis City Hall Reporter Jordan Smith at JTSmith@usatodayco.com. Follow him on X @jordantsmith09 and Bluesky @jordanaccidentally.bsky.social.
Gov. Mike Braun asked state regulators to reconsider their decision to greenlight a $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana, doubling down on his condemnation of a move that could leave Indianapolis residents with higher electrical bills for years.
Braun wrote in a June 18 news release that he had asked Indiana Utility Counselor Abby Gray, who heads the office representing ratepayers in proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, to petition for a rehearing of the AES rate case.
Gray indicated in the release that her office would submit the petition shortly. No petition had been posted on the IURC’s online docket as of this story’s publication.
The rate increase, which was approved by the IURC on June 17, was substantially less than the $192 million increase that AES initially requested. It was also less than the amount proposed in a settlement last October between AES and major electricity consumers.
But the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, which Gray leads, came out strongly against any increase to AES’s base rates. In September, the OUCC called for a $21 million reduction instead.
As the Republican Party grapples with rising discontent over affordability, Braun has used opposition to rising utility rates to telegraph that he’s committed to keeping costs down for Indiana residents. He signed a law in February that allows the state to make rate-setting decisions that reward or penalize utilities based on metrics including affordability.
In March, he told reporters that he would take on Indiana’s five investor-owned utilities, describing himself as the “new sheriff in town.”
And after the IURC voted 3-1 to approve the AES rate increase, he wrote in a post to X that he was “deeply disappointed.”
Braun wrote in the June 18 news release that he had appointed Gray, a longtime OUCC lawyer and judge, to her current post because he knew she “would help me fight for Hoosiers.”
According to AES’s estimates, the rate increase will cost households an additional $5 per month for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they use, beginning in July. A second hike will take effect in January.
Tilly Robinson is a Pulliam fellow for the Indianapolis Star. She can be reached at tilly.robinson@indystar.com.
The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.
It now heads to the Senate floor.
The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.
A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”
Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.
Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.
Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.
The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.
It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.
Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.
In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.
“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.
“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”
The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”
Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.
Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.
The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.
(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.
That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.
Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.
“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”
Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.
“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”
The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.
“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”
Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.
“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”
AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.
The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.
Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.
Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.
Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.
“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”
Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.
Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”
AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.
The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”
A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.
-
Miami, FL1 minute agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA8 minutes agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?
-
Denver, CO11 minutes agoDenver Public Schools’ decline in enrollment continues to reshape district
-
Seattle, WA16 minutes agoWoo twirls 7 scoreless innings in bounceback outing vs. Orioles
-
San Diego, CA23 minutes agoNASCAR makes history with inaugural Naval Base Coronado race
-
Milwaukee, WI26 minutes agoStolen Oak Creek couple’s car found by viewer dumped near Milwaukee apartment complex
-
Atlanta, GA31 minutes ago18 essential Atlanta restaurants, from neighborhood gems to MICHELIN-starred destinations
-
Minneapolis, MN38 minutes agoHmong in Minnesota: 50 Years of Resilience
