Military vehicles hummed quietly at Camp Withycombe in Happy Valley, Oregon, on October 5, 2025, as the state found itself at the center of a growing legal and political storm. The Trump administration’s push to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland, over the explicit objections of Oregon’s governor, has ignited fierce debate and set off a complex legal battle that could reshape the boundaries of presidential power in domestic military deployments.
Since June, the city’s South Waterfront has seen continuous protests outside the Portland U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building. At their peak, these demonstrations have drawn several hundred people and occasional flashes of violence. Most days, however, the scene is far more subdued: a few dozen protesters, many participating in lawful demonstrations—even a naked bike ride passing by the ICE facility on October 12, as captured by OPB. Still, the White House insists that federal law enforcement officers are stretched thin and that National Guard support is necessary to maintain order and protect federal property.
But is Portland really a “war zone,” as President Trump has claimed? Legal experts and local observers say that description doesn’t match reality. According to reporting from OPB, the administration’s argument is that a “calibrated” number of troops would relieve overburdened federal officers. Yet, as Christopher Mirasola, a national security scholar at the University of Houston Law Center, told OPB, the president’s claim to broad authority for such deployments is anything but clear-cut. “There’s nothing in Title 10 that specifically authorizes using the military to protect federal functions,” Mirasola explained, referencing the legal provision the administration has cited. While the executive branch has long asserted it can use the military to protect federal property or employees, “none of that has been public until very recently.”
The legal roadblocks have been swift and significant. On October 4 and again on October 5, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued orders blocking the Trump administration from federalizing or deploying any Oregon National Guard members. The administration had already federalized hundreds of California National Guard members earlier in the year, and even sent some to Oregon, but their deployment was halted by the court’s intervention. Judge Immergut’s orders have now been extended through at least October 31 and November 1, according to the Statesman Journal.
Immergut acknowledged the complexity of the situation during an October 15 hearing, stating she was “trying to cover contingencies” with the extension of her orders. The appeals process is ongoing: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on October 9 but had not released a decision by mid-October. In the meantime, the 200 Oregon National Guard troops—drawn from units based in Salem and Woodburn—remain at Camp Rilea on the north coast, where they have been conducting planning and training for about two weeks, according to the U.S. Northern Command.
The Trump administration’s legal team argues that the president has the constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard, even over the objections of a state governor, especially when federal law enforcement is unable to fulfill its duties. They maintain that the deployment is both necessary and narrowly tailored: the troops would be directed to protect federal personnel and property, particularly the ICE facility and other federal buildings that have been the focal points of protest activity.
Yet the legal framework for such a move is far from settled. Under federal law, the president can federalize the National Guard in cases of foreign invasion, rebellion, or when federal law cannot be enforced by regular means. Judge Immergut found that these criteria had not been met in Oregon. In a similar case in California earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit initially sided with the administration, but a federal judge later ruled that the Trump administration had “violated the Posse Comitatus Act willfully” by using federalized troops as law enforcement—a role strictly forbidden by the Civil War-era law. However, the judge allowed federal troops to continue protecting federal property, as long as they stayed within the legal limits.
Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School and retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told OPB that the facts on the ground in Portland simply do not justify such a deployment. “In L.A. it was already a stretch. Here, it’s beyond a stretch,” she said. “There’s simply no facts to support any kind of straight-faced justification or rationale that ICE agents are unable to do their job, and therefore they need military members to come in and help them do their job.”
During the Ninth Circuit hearing, two Trump-appointed judges appeared skeptical of Oregon’s arguments against deployment. Judge Bridget Bade noted that the deployment was “limited just to the protection of federal personnel and federal property,” seemingly downplaying fears that troops would patrol city streets. Still, the potential for escalation remains a concern. VanLandingham warned, “The fear, besides the danger of desensitizing people to the sight of military folks in our city, on our city streets, is that it may actually provoke some violence.”
Governor Tina Kotek, for her part, is working with law enforcement and Portland officials to prepare for a range of possible outcomes. A spokesperson emphasized that the “underlying principle [is] public safety and the right to express freedom of speech.” The state’s lawsuit against the Trump administration is proceeding on a slower track, with Judge Immergut scheduling a three-day trial to begin October 29 to determine the legality of federal deployment. Legal experts like Mirasola believe that, regardless of the outcome, the case—or one like it—will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. “Courts have not ever engaged with whether the president has an inherent authority to use the military to protect federal functions,” he noted. “It’s come up tangentially in one case from the 1800s, but it’s never been litigated squarely.”
For now, the Oregon National Guard remains in limbo—federalized, but unable to deploy, as the courts maintain the status quo. The legal and political stakes are high: the outcome will not only shape the immediate situation in Portland but could also set a precedent for the limits of presidential power in deploying military force on American soil. As the trial date approaches and the nation watches, the questions raised in Oregon may soon demand answers from the highest court in the land.