On Sunday, October 5, 2025, the ongoing standoff between the Trump administration and several Democratic-led states reached a dramatic turning point as a federal judge temporarily blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, halted not only the planned dispatch of Oregon’s own National Guard but extended to federalized troops from California and Texas as well. This legal intervention follows a whirlwind of escalating tensions, political rhetoric, and legal maneuvering that has gripped the nation for weeks.
Judge Immergut’s ruling came after a joint lawsuit by California and Oregon, which challenged the Trump administration’s move to send approximately 200 members of the California National Guard to Portland. According to Axios, California joined the suit after learning that its troops were being deployed to Portland, a city that had seen nightly protests outside its immigration processing facility since the start of Trump’s second term in January. While the demonstrations had occasionally flared up, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek described them as “relatively small and localized to just one block of the city of 650,000 residents.”
The judge’s initial order on Saturday, October 4, had already blocked the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. However, the Trump administration quickly pivoted, arranging for California and then Texas National Guard units to be sent in their place. As The Associated Press reported, this prompted a hastily called emergency hearing, during which Judge Immergut grilled federal lawyers about what she saw as an attempt to circumvent her earlier decision. “How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention of the TRO I issued yesterday?” she asked, making clear her skepticism about the administration’s legal justification.
In her expanded order, Immergut stated, “It is not appropriate to bring federalized military into Oregon at this time,” echoing concerns voiced by both Oregon and California officials. The judge’s temporary restraining order, now broader in scope, is set to remain in effect pending a hearing scheduled for October 29, 2025, where President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other top officials are named as defendants.
The Pentagon, for its part, had announced earlier on Sunday that about 200 federalized California National Guard members—who had been on duty around Los Angeles—were being reassigned to Portland. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek said approximately 100 had arrived on Saturday, with another 100 en route on Sunday. At the same time, a memo from Defense Secretary Hegseth indicated that up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel were being activated for deployment not only to Oregon, but also to Illinois and potentially other states.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott authorized the call-up of his state’s Guard troops, declaring on X (formerly Twitter), “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it.” Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s office voiced strong opposition, stating that “the situation in Chicago does not require the use of the military and, as a result, the Governor opposes the deployment of the national guard under any status.”
For Oregon and its leaders, the federal government’s moves appeared to be a direct affront to the state’s sovereignty and an unnecessary escalation. Governor Kotek said during a news conference, “There’s no need for military intervention in Oregon. There’s no insurrection in Portland, there’s no threat to national security.” California Governor Gavin Newsom was even more pointed in his criticism, calling the deployment “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.” In a statement, Newsom said, “The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens.”
The legal battle has also become a stage for broader constitutional arguments. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller asserted on X, “A district court judge has no conceivable authority, whatsoever, to restrict the President and Commander-in-Chief from dispatching members of the US military to defend federal lives and property.” He insisted that the president’s authority to deploy troops to defend federal facilities is “undisputed under both statute and the Constitution.”
But the states and their legal teams see things differently. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, in a video posted to Bluesky, emphasized that Judge Immergut’s latest order was “broader, pausing all attempts to bring any National Guard from any state to Portland.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta also weighed in, saying the president’s actions are “well outside of the norms or practices of any president.” He added, “But this President is determined to take as much power as the courts will give him. This fight isn’t over, but today’s rebuke of the President’s illegal actions is a step in the right direction.”
On the ground in Portland, the protests that sparked this showdown have remained relatively peaceful, according to multiple reports. Judge Immergut herself noted in her Saturday order that the protests outside the Portland ICE facility “were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days — or even weeks — leading up to” the administration’s September 28 deployment directive. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson described the federal response as “an aggressive approach trying to inflame the situation that has otherwise been peaceful.” He reported what he called unjustified use of force and indiscriminate spraying of pepper spray and impact munitions by federal agents during a protest outside the ICE facility, and said the city had alerted the Department of Justice’s civil rights division.
As the legal process unfolds, the 300 California National Guard personnel remain federalized and under the president’s command, with the U.S. Army Northern Command advising that their status will continue through the end of January 2026. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is expected to appeal Judge Immergut’s ruling, maintaining that the president’s powers as commander-in-chief supersede state objections in matters of federal property and national security.
What happens next could reshape the relationship between states and the federal government, as well as the limits of presidential authority in deploying the military domestically. For now, though, the “rule of law” has, in the words of Governor Newsom, “prevailed”—at least temporarily—in the face of a contentious and highly public battle over the use of America’s citizen-soldiers on its own streets.
