Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Portland

A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily halted former President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard in Portland, calling the move an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority.

The ruling marks a major setback for the Trump administration’s effort to use federal troops in Democrat-led cities under the justification of restoring law and order.

The decision, issued by District Judge Karin Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, grants a temporary restraining order that blocks the National Guard deployment for 14 days, until October 18. Oregon’s attorney general, Dan Rayfield, confirmed the state will seek to extend the order, keeping control of Oregon’s National Guard under Governor Tina Kotek’s command.

Judge Immergut ruled that Oregon and the city of Portland “are likely to succeed on their claim that the President exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.” In her opinion, she stated that while the administration cited clashes between protesters and federal officers as justification, the incidents “are nowhere near the type of events that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

The judge further warned that accepting the administration’s arguments would risk “blurring the line between civil and military federal power, to the detriment of this nation.”

The Origins of the Deployment Plan

President Trump announced on Truth Social that he would send National Guard troops into Portland, which he described as a “war-ravaged city.” The administration had called for the federalization of 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard, despite the troops still being in training as of last week.

The move was part of a larger federal initiative to send troops to Democratic-led cities experiencing protests, especially around Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. Similar deployments were authorized for Chicago and Los Angeles in response to what the White House called “violent riots.”

Local officials in Oregon quickly pushed back. Oregon’s governor and attorney general jointly sued the administration, arguing that the president’s order violated both constitutional and statutory limits on the use of state National Guard units for domestic law enforcement.

At a Saturday news conference, Attorney General Rayfield said, “Today’s ruling is a healthy check on the president’s power. As president, you must have actual facts based on reality, not social media or gut feeling, to mobilize the military.”

Governor Kotek called the ruling “a step in the right direction,” urging Trump to “respect the court’s decision and the rule of law.”

Portland’s “Perception Versus Reality” Problem

Oregon officials have accused the administration of exaggerating unrest in Portland to justify military involvement. “The president’s perception is it’s World War II out here,” said Portland city attorney Caroline Turco. “The reality is, it’s a beautiful city with a capable police force that can handle the situation.”

Judge Immergut’s decision echoed that sentiment. She concluded that protests near Portland’s ICE facility were “not significantly violent” and that the President lacked the authority to federalize Oregon’s National Guard absent a rebellion or invasion. Federal law, she noted, requires such actions to be coordinated with governors, not unilaterally ordered by the president.

During the hearing, the judge questioned whether Trump’s Truth Social post announcing the deployment could be considered an official presidential act. “A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination?” she asked. “Is that really what I should be relying on?”

The Justice Department’s lawyer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, argued that the post reflected Trump’s decision-making, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth carried out.

Rayfield mocked that reasoning afterward, saying, “A court of law is meant to be based on facts, not social media trolling and gossip.”

Federal Claims of Violence Disputed

The Trump administration defended its decision by citing multiple incidents involving protesters, including blocked entrances to ICE facilities, threats against agents, and thrown incendiary devices. Hamilton said the ICE facility had to close for three weeks during the summer due to violence.

However, Portland’s attorneys presented evidence showing that demonstrations had been largely peaceful and localized until Trump’s announcement drew renewed attention to the protests.

Immergut found the state’s arguments convincing, writing that there was “substantial evidence that protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent” prior to Trump’s directive.

Broader Implications and Past Parallels

This is not the first time the Trump administration has faced judicial backlash over its federal intervention in local law enforcement. Last month, a federal judge in California ruled that the administration broke the law when it sent thousands of National Guard troops and Marines into Los Angeles to suppress protests against ICE operations. That decision similarly barred the use of military forces for civilian law enforcement.

Judge Immergut noted that the circumstances in Portland were “categorically different” from those in Los Angeles, where large-scale violence had been documented. “Neither outside the Portland ICE facility nor elsewhere in the City of Portland was there unlawful activity akin to what was occurring in Los Angeles leading up to June 7, 2025,” she wrote.

The temporary restraining order in Portland could be extended at a hearing scheduled for October 17. A preliminary injunction hearing is expected on October 29, which could result in a longer-lasting block.

Oregon officials acknowledged the possibility that the Trump administration could appeal the ruling and seek a stay of the order. “All of these cases are factually dependent,” Rayfield said. “The facts in each jurisdiction will control how each judge rules.”

Rising Tensions in Chicago

As Portland’s legal battle plays out, tensions are also rising in Chicago, where President Trump has authorized 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to “protect federal officers and assets.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker condemned the order as “outrageous and un-American.” He said the Trump administration’s Department of War gave him an ultimatum: “Call up your troops, or we will.”

“There is no need for military troops on the ground in Illinois,” Pritzker said, calling the order an attack on state sovereignty.

The White House countered that Chicago officials have failed to contain “violent riots and lawlessness.” Protests near an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, resulted in at least 18 arrests on Friday. Federal authorities said the operation was necessary after protesters tried to breach hospital security while a detainee received medical care.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told CNN that nearly 30 protesters attempted to enter a hospital where the detainee was being treated. Local alderperson Jessie Fuentes, who was handcuffed by agents during the incident, described the federal officers’ response as “violent and unnecessary.”

Meanwhile, federal raids in Chicago neighborhoods have fueled further outrage. Earlier this week, a multiagency operation resulted in the arrest of 37 undocumented immigrants in what witnesses described as a “military-style invasion.” Children and adults were reportedly dragged from apartments as neighbors screamed in fear.

What Happens Next

The federal government’s aggressive posture toward cities like Portland and Chicago has drawn criticism from state officials and civil rights advocates, who argue that such deployments are politically motivated and lack factual justification.

For now, Oregon’s legal victory stands as a major check on the Trump administration’s power to unilaterally deploy state troops for domestic policing. The restraining order could set a precedent for other states challenging similar federal overreach.

Whether Trump’s team will appeal the decision remains to be seen, but Oregon’s leaders say they are prepared to continue the fight. “This case is about preserving the balance between state and federal power,” Rayfield said. “No president, regardless of party, should be allowed to use state troops for political theater.”