Military leases raise questions of security, sacrifice, and the future of Hawaiʻi
By Natali Segovia and Wayne Chung Tanaka
“Why they always picking on brown people? Why they pick on us? Why they have to go train, keep training and then bus’ up their land, spoil their land. Radiation. Uranium. The land is all bus’ up. Every place the military go, they leave ʻōpala. Bad ʻōpala.” – Aunty Maxine Kahaulelio, advocate for Pōhakuloa.
On Aug. 19, 2025, Gov. Josh Green publicly announced his intent to negotiate a fast-tracked deal with the U.S. Army for its “retention” of public lands currently used for military training, under 65-year, $1 leases set to expire in 2029.
Alarms were immediately raised by concerned citizens, community advocates, environmentalists, and Native Hawaiian groups.
The announcement came on the heels of the Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR) rejection of the Army’s final environmental impact statements (EISs) for its continued “retention” of “ceded” Hawaiian lands currently leased at Pōhakuloa and on Oʻahu.
Hours of public testimony from Native Hawaiians and other community members included concerns ranging from undisclosed climate impacts to unaddressed Native Hawaiian rights, with many opposed to any further military use. Revising the EISs alone would take far longer than the two months the Army and governor had in mind for a land deal – and the governor has no authority to bypass this or other necessary legal requirements.
Negotiating for What and for Whom?
Concerns with the governor’s remarks were more than just procedural. Local communities have long struggled with the military’s unremediated harm to Hawaiʻi’s ʻāina (e.g., unexploded ordnance), wai (e.g, contaminated water), and social fabric – such as displaced families and disproportionate rates of child sex solicitation arrests.
Many have wondered whether and how the governor would address these complex issues in “fast-tracked negotiations” with the Army.
While Gov. Green has floated ideas such as land cleanup and the relinquishment of Mākua Valley (which has not been used for live fire training in two decades) existing laws and lease provisions already require the military to remediate and return lands no longer in use.
The governor’s proposal to have the Army build 5,000 homes has also been criticized as uninformed, given the fact that more than 14,000 private Hawaiʻi residences are already rented to military service members whose monthly housing allowances of $3,000-5,000 not only drive up housing costs – especially on Oʻahu – but exacerbate the preexisting shortage of affordable housing.
Why Negotiate?
Behind Gov. Green’s push for a land deal is likely his stated belief that Hawaiʻi grants the military a “positional advantage” in tensions with China. This echoes the broader “containment by deterrence” rationale used to justify continued U.S. military occupation and expansion in Guåhan (Guam), Okinawa, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and elsewhere in Oceania.
Notably, all of these places also struggle with military contamination and socio-cultural disruption.
At a Land Power in the Pacific (LANPAC) conference in Waikīkī this past May, U.S. Army Pacific Command General Ronald Clark described Hawaiʻi’s role as “central” to “regional security stability” in the face of “aggression by China.”
Green told LANPAC conferees that “we here in Hawaiʻi recognize the incredible value of our geopolitical position,” and expressed gratitude that Indo-Pacific forces would not see any cuts in military “resources,” despite massive federal funding reductions for everything from healthcare to environmental protection, to the arts and humanities.
As reported in a May 14, 2025, Star-Advertiser article, the Department of Defense (renamed the Department of War by presidential order in September) has often cited increased militarism in the Pacific as a response to “aggression by China.” Yet no country in the world operates more overseas military installations than the United States (128 in more than 70 countries according to visualcapitalist.com). By comparison, the United Kingdom, France and Russia have a combined total of about 30 foreign bases, while China operates three to six overseas bases.
Analysts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology note that while China’s growing economic influence may alarm Western powers in terms of its potential territorial expansion and global influence, its demonstrated priorities appear to be internal and regional security, and economic development.
Against this backdrop, continued U.S. military buildup in the Pacific may heighten regional tensions – especially when combined with cuts to U.S. foreign aid and climate programs relied upon by countries struggling with the environmental, health, and socioeconomic impacts of U.S. military activities.
The Road Ahead
Legal concerns, the rights and claims of Kānaka ʻŌiwi, heightened awareness of environmental impacts, and the needs of future generations may now be shifting Hawaiʻi’s long deference to military pressure.
Local governments have already signaled opposition to continued military training: the Hawaiʻi County Council unanimously passed a resolution urging an end to the bombing and desecration of Pōhakuloa, and the rejection of any proposed Army land retention without “comprehensive cleanup, restoration, and bioremediation.”
The Maui County Council quickly followed suit.
“The justification of ‘national security’ means less when America’s own military is responsible for contaminating our water, destroying our environment, and hurting our people, all while the federal administration simultaneously cuts funding for the actual security created by healthcare, education, housing, and environmental protection,” reflected Councilmember Keani Rawlins-Fernandez, who introduced the Maui County measure.
“Hawaiʻi shouldn’t be a training ground for plundering other countries’ natural resources and hurting other Indigenous people around the world for the benefit of American wealth-hoarders.”
While Hawaiʻi residents continue to await clarity from the governor, many have called on him to reconsider engaging in backroom negotiations.
“The commitment the governor has expressed to the military should not be greater than the commitment he took on to respect and represent the people of Hawaiʻi,” said Healani Sonoda-Pale, an organizer with Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi.
“The people have spoken. The land board and county councils are listening. The governor must do the same.”
Natali Segovia is an international human rights attorney and executive director of the Water Protector Legal Collective. Wayne Chung Tanaka is the executive director of the Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and a former public policy manager with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
