Federal Judge Halts Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Portland

In a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to militarize Democratic-led cities, a federal judge on Saturday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump himself in 2019, ruled that the president’s characterization of the city as “war-ravaged” was “untethered to facts” and exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority. The decision, which lasts at least until October 18, comes amid escalating tensions over protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility and highlights deepening divides between the federal government and state officials.

The controversy erupted on September 27 when Trump took to his Truth Social platform to announce the deployment, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to send troops to protect what he called “war-ravaged Portland” from “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” besieging ICE facilities. Trump authorized the use of “full force, if necessary,” framing the move as essential to safeguard federal assets following a recent shooting at an ICE site in Dallas. The announcement blindsided Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, who immediately condemned it as unwarranted and inflammatory.

Kotek, in a press conference shortly after Trump’s post, described Portland as a “thriving community” with vibrant sports, shopping, and cultural scenes, far from the dystopian image painted by the president. “Our city is a far cry from the war-ravaged community he has posted on social media,” she said, emphasizing that local law enforcement had the situation under control. Wilson echoed this, warning that federal intervention could escalate tensions rather than resolve them, drawing parallels to the chaotic 2020 protests where Trump’s earlier deployments fueled unrest.

Protests near the Portland ICE facility began intensifying in June 2025, sparked by opposition to Trump’s immigration policies, including mass deportations and raids. Demonstrators, numbering in the dozens rather than thousands, have gathered nightly on a single city block, chanting, holding signs, and occasionally clashing with federal agents. Portland Police Bureau reports described recent gatherings as “low-energy” with “minimal activity,” resulting in only 25 arrests since mid-June and none in the months leading up to Trump’s announcement. Incidents included protesters blocking entrances, spray-painting threats, and doxxing agents, but local officers—numbering over 800 and trained in crowd control and First Amendment protections—managed the situation without requesting military aid.

In her 20-page ruling, Immergut dissected the legal basis for federalizing the Guard, invoking the Constitution’s militia clause, which empowers Congress—not the president unilaterally—to call troops for executing laws, suppressing insurrections, or repelling invasions. She found no evidence of a “rebellion” or inability of local forces to enforce federal law, noting that Portland’s unrest paled in comparison to more severe cases like Los Angeles, where a similar deployment faced court scrutiny. “If the relatively small, contained, and largely sedated protests… can justify military intervention, then the President’s authority… would be virtually unlimited,” Immergut wrote, warning of a slide toward “martial law.”

The judge also highlighted immediate harm to Oregon’s sovereignty: Federalizing the Guard shifts control from Kotek to the president, potentially costing taxpayers up to $10 million and diverting citizen-soldiers from state duties. ACLU of Oregon Executive Director Sandy Chung praised the decision as a defense against “dangerous abuse of power,” arguing it disrespects the state, its people, and Guard members. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed the lawsuit alongside the city, called it a halt to normalizing military presence in U.S. cities.

The Trump administration swiftly appealed to the Ninth Circuit, with White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson asserting that the president “exercised his lawful authority” to protect federal personnel from “violent riots.” DHS officials claimed protesters assaulted officers with rocks, bricks, and incendiaries, damaging property and forcing facility closures for weeks in summer. Critics, however, pointed to Trump’s reliance on outdated or misleading footage, including 2020 clips aired on Fox News, to justify the narrative of chaos.

This isn’t Trump’s first courtroom clash over Guard deployments. In June, he sent 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid anti-ICE protests; a California judge ruled it illegal, citing violations of laws barring military involvement in civilian law enforcement, though an appeals court partially upheld it. Similar moves in Washington, D.C., and Memphis drew local backlash, with Democratic leaders arguing political motivation over necessity. On Saturday, Trump ordered 300 Guard troops to Chicago despite Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s defiance, vowing to “defend the rule of law” against federal “aggression.”

Legal experts view Immergut’s ruling as a check on executive power, reinforcing the Posse Comitatus Act’s limits on military domestic roles and the Tenth Amendment’s state sovereignty protections. Rayfield noted each case’s fact-specific nature but suggested Portland’s “sporadic violence” doesn’t meet the insurrection threshold. Portland Police confirmed no need for external aid, with officers maintaining distance during federal clashes to avoid escalation.

Public reaction split along partisan lines. Supporters like U.S. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer decried Portland as a “crime-ridden warzone,” urging crackdowns. On X (formerly Twitter), Trump allies decried the judge as enabling “legal insurrection,” while opponents hailed it as upholding constitutional checks. Residents like Kathryn Holland, who attended protests, described peaceful demonstrations contrasting national rhetoric.

As the appeal unfolds, the ruling underscores broader concerns about federal-state relations under Trump. Kotek and Wilson urged de-escalation, with Kotek reminding that Guard members are “Oregonians—our neighbors and friends.” Immergut scheduled a hearing for potential extension, signaling ongoing scrutiny. Congresswoman Andrea Salinas called it a “win for the rule of law,” while the White House vowed vindication.

This case tests the boundaries of presidential power in quelling domestic unrest, especially as Trump eyes similar actions in other cities. With crime data showing Portland’s homicides down 51% year-over-year, the deployment’s rationale remains hotly contested. As one X user noted, it’s “authoritarian overreach meets resistance—in the streets and the courtroom.” The Ninth Circuit’s decision could set precedents for future interventions, potentially reshaping how the U.S. balances security and civil liberties,