Late Sunday evening, the legal and political standoff over the use of federalized National Guard troops in U.S. cities reached a dramatic new chapter. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, issued a sweeping order blocking President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard soldiers to Portland, Oregon—a move that capped off a weekend of escalating tensions between the White House and several Democratic-led states. The judge’s decision, delivered during an emergency hearing, was the second such order in as many days, underscoring the gravity and immediacy of the constitutional questions at play.
The controversy began on October 4, 2025, when Judge Immergut first barred Trump from federalizing and deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. The White House had argued that recent protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in southwest Portland amounted to a "rebellion" against the U.S. government, justifying a military response. But Immergut found the president’s assessment was “simply untethered to the facts,” as reported by Democracy Docket. She concluded that Trump had violated Oregon’s state sovereignty by federalizing its troops under false pretenses.
Undeterred, the Trump administration quickly pivoted. The Pentagon announced on October 5 that it would reassign about 200 federalized California National Guard members, previously stationed in Los Angeles, to Portland. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo that same evening, calling up an additional 400 Texas National Guard troops for deployment “where needed,” including Oregon’s largest city. According to DW, the Department of Defense stated these troops would support ICE and other federal personnel “performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property.”
California joined Oregon’s lawsuit against the Trump administration’s actions, arguing that redeploying California Guard troops into another state without that state’s consent was illegal. Judge Immergut sided with the states, granting an expanded order prohibiting the deployment of any federalized National Guard members in Oregon. The order, which blocks the troop deployments until at least October 18, was a direct rebuke to the administration’s efforts to sidestep her initial ruling.
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek was unequivocal in her response. “The facts on the ground in Oregon haven’t changed,” she said at a news conference on Sunday. “There’s no need for military intervention in Oregon. There’s no insurrection in Portland, there’s no threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom also condemned the deployment as “appalling” and “un-American.” In a statement shared on X, Newsom declared, “It’s about power. He is using our military as political pawns to build up his own ego.” Newsom, who has previously clashed with Trump over the use of federal troops in Los Angeles, vowed to fight the move in court and urged the public not to “stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct.”
The legal and political battle quickly spilled beyond Oregon’s borders. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker revealed late Sunday that Trump had ordered the deployment of 400 Texas National Guard troops to Illinois, Oregon, and other locations. The Trump administration described Chicago as the “world’s most dangerous city,” a characterization Pritzker flatly rejected. “We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” Pritzker posted on X. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”
Pritzker warned that the president was sending “troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation.” He called on Texas Governor Greg Abbott to withdraw the troops, but Abbott, a Republican, was unyielding. “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott said on X. “No Guard can match the training, skill, and expertise of the Texas National Guard.” Abbott confirmed that he had authorized Trump to call up Texas Guard troops and fully supported their deployment to Illinois and Oregon.
Legal experts have been quick to highlight the constitutional stakes. Dr. Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told DW that the deployments “are a violation of the 10th Amendment, as judges now have said in several jurisdictions, including a California federal trial judge and now an Oregon trial judge.” She further warned, “You can’t use the federal military to engage in law enforcement activities.” Finkelstein cautioned that the U.S. was “moving in the direction of authoritarianism,” pointing to what she described as the “clearly illegal use of federal troops to suppress constitutional rights, to suppress open dissent and... to gain control over independent sources of power.”
At the heart of the administration’s legal defense is the rarely invoked 10 U.S.C. 12406. Department of Justice attorneys have argued that this statute gives the president near limitless power to federalize Guard troops in cases of foreign invasion, rebellion, or when regular resources are insufficient to enforce the law. In Sunday’s hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton insisted that “nothing in the statute prevents Trump from using California Guard troops he federalized months ago in a different state.” But Judge Immergut pushed back, stating, “My order was based on conditions in Portland. That there was no legal basis to bring the National Guard into Oregon.”
Observers say the dispute is about more than just the legality of troop deployments; it’s a test of federalism, executive power, and the boundaries of state sovereignty. Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, noted on social media, “Folks, we are watching the adjudication of some of the most important constitutional issues of federalism, executive discretion, and judicial review since the 19th [century].”
The political undertones are impossible to ignore. Every city that Trump has targeted for troop deployments—Portland, Chicago, and even Washington, D.C.—is run by Democrats. Critics argue that the administration’s actions are less about public safety and more about consolidating federal power and intimidating political opponents. Supporters, meanwhile, insist that the president is acting to protect federal property and ensure the rule of law in cities they say have lost control.
As the legal wrangling continues and the nation watches closely, the question remains: How far can a president go in using military force within the United States, especially over the objections of state leaders? With the next court hearing scheduled for later this month, and appeals likely to follow, the outcome could reshape the balance of power between Washington and the states for years to come.
The fight over federalized National Guard deployments has become a flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle over federal authority, state rights, and the meaning of democracy itself. The coming weeks promise further legal drama—and, perhaps, answers to questions that have simmered beneath the surface of American politics for generations.
