On Saturday, October 4, 2025, a federal judge in Portland delivered a decisive blow to President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to deploy military force in American cities, temporarily blocking his administration from federalizing and dispatching 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, not only halts Trump’s plans for Portland but also throws a spotlight on a broader national debate over the limits of presidential power and the role of the military in domestic affairs.
Judge Immergut’s 30-page opinion, as reported by The Oregonian, was unambiguous: Trump’s move violated the 10th Amendment, which reserves police powers for the states, and failed to meet the constitutional threshold for federal intervention. "This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs," Immergut wrote. "This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation."
The temporary restraining order is set to expire on October 18, with a hearing scheduled for October 17 to determine whether the order should be extended or converted into a preliminary injunction. In the meantime, federal lawyers have until October 17 to make their case for lifting the block. Oregon National Guard members, who had already been training at Camp Rilea in Warrenton for a possible deployment, remain on standby as the legal battle unfolds.
Governor Tina Kotek of Oregon was quick to respond to the ruling, stating, "The truth has prevailed. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. No fires, no bombs, no fatalities due to civil unrest. The only threat we face is to our democracy — and it is being led by President Donald Trump." Her remarks, echoed by other state officials, frame the confrontation not as a matter of public safety, but as a fundamental test of constitutional boundaries.
Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon’s senior U.S. Senator, also weighed in, accusing the president of stoking conflict rather than quelling it. "I will keep working with local and state officials to ensure Trump does not keep wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to make Portland the center of his perverse fantasy about conducting assaults on U.S. cities," Wyden said, according to The Oregonian.
President Trump, for his part, has not shied away from inflaming the rhetoric. In a speech to military leaders earlier that week, he described Portland as "like World War II" and suggested that "we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds" for the U.S. military. He also took to his social media platform, TruthSocial, to claim that the ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland was under attack by "anti-fascists and domestic terrorists." However, reports from Oregon Public Broadcasting and The Oregonian indicate that protests at the facility have been mostly peaceful, with only a few dozen participants in recent months, swelling to several hundred after Trump called for federal reinforcements.
The local U.S. attorney’s office has brought charges against 26 individuals since early June for crimes at the protest site, including arson and resisting arrest. Last weekend, as protests grew in response to Trump’s statements, Portland Police arrested several men for fighting, including a right-wing influencer. The U.S. Justice Department has since launched an investigation into the Portland Police Department over the influencer’s arrest.
The legal confrontation in Oregon is far from isolated. On the same day as the Portland ruling, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker announced that the Trump administration planned to federalize 300 Illinois National Guard troops to guard federal property in Chicago, again over the governor’s objections. According to reporting from the ACLU and ACLU of Illinois, this move follows a pattern of federal deployments in 2025, with National Guard troops and federal agents sent to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Portland. The federal government has justified these actions by citing threats to federal facilities and the need for immigration enforcement, but critics argue that the deployments escalate tensions and infringe on state sovereignty.
"This is the latest escalation of attacks on people in the Chicago area," said Colleen K. Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois. "From federal officers’ attack on Black and Brown residents — including children — living in an apartment building on the City’s South Side, to the indiscriminate firing of pepper balls and projectiles in our neighborhoods and against protesters, Trump is targeting Chicago. The president clearly despises the reality that Chicago rejects his cruel policies, but we will not be intimidated."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, added, "We see the president’s strategy for what it is — placing National Guard troops in legal and ethical jeopardy in an attempt to create conflict, sow fear in our communities, and intimidate people from exercising their constitutional rights. But we can’t let this president normalize military and armed federal policing in our country and must remember that no matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and troops are bound by the Constitution and must be held accountable if they violate our rights."
Central to the legal debate is the Posse Comitatus Act, a law dating back to the 19th century that generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. The Oregon lawsuit, filed by the state and the city of Portland, alleges that the Trump administration’s actions violate both the 10th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. The plaintiffs also claim that Portland is being singled out for political retaliation, a charge that federal lawyers have denied.
During a two-hour hearing on October 3, Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general Scott Kennedy called the attempted federal deployment "one of the most dramatic infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history." Meanwhile, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the federal government, described protestors outside the ICE facility as "vicious and cruel" and argued that federal agents were overworked and in need of reinforcement.
As the legal and political battles intensify, the outcome in Oregon could set a precedent for similar disputes in Illinois and other states. For now, the temporary restraining order stands as a rare judicial check on executive authority, underscoring the enduring tension between federal power and state rights in the American system.
With hearings scheduled and lawsuits mounting, the coming weeks promise to test the resilience of constitutional safeguards and the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. The eyes of the country, and perhaps the world, remain fixed on Portland, Chicago, and the unfolding drama over who truly controls America’s streets in times of unrest.
