Legal battles over the deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents in several Democratic-led U.S. cities have intensified, with courts from Oregon to Washington, D.C., and Illinois weighing the limits of presidential authority and the rights of local governments. As of late October 2025, these disputes have created a patchwork of rulings, appeals, and protests, all against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s push to address what his administration calls violent resistance to immigration enforcement and crime.
In Portland, Oregon, the deployment of National Guard troops remains on hold. On October 24, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused a decision that could have allowed Trump to send 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city. The court said it would need until 5 p.m. on October 28 to decide whether to reconsider the earlier panel’s decision, meaning no troops will be deployed for at least several days. This legal limbo follows a series of temporary restraining orders issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut earlier in the month. One order prohibited Trump from calling up Oregon troops, and another blocked him from sending any Guard members to Oregon after he tried to deploy troops from California instead.
The Trump administration has argued that recent appellate decisions should compel Judge Immergut to dissolve her restraining orders. At a hearing on October 24, Department of Justice attorney Jacob Moshe Roth pressed the judge, saying, “I thought it was clear enough that it would happen very quickly, and we’re now quite a number of days later.” However, Oregon’s attorneys maintain that the orders are distinct and should remain in place while the appeals court considers a broader review. Oregon senior assistant attorney general Scott Kennedy emphasized, “The absence of a mandate … and other issues all make the finality of that motions panel decision highly uncertain.”
President Trump initially ordered a total of 800 guardsmen from Oregon, California, and Texas to be on standby for Portland, but the administration says it does not plan to deploy more than 200. “They were not supposed to be supplemental; they were supposed to be instead of (the Oregon troops who were initially blocked),” Roth explained in court. For now, both of Judge Immergut’s restraining orders remain in effect, continuing to halt any deployment while the legal wrangling continues.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., more than 2,000 National Guard members remain on the streets, even after the official emergency period ended in September. Trump’s August executive order declared a crime emergency in the capital, despite Department of Justice data showing violent crime at a 30-year low. By September, over 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command, alongside hundreds of federal agents.
The presence of these troops has sparked a lawsuit from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who argues that the president overstepped his authority by deploying troops for law enforcement without the city’s consent. “Deploying the National Guard to engage in law enforcement is not only unnecessary and unwanted, but it is also dangerous and harmful to the District and its residents,” Schwalb said last month, according to CNN. Mitchell Reich, representing the city, told U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, “The essential point of our argument is that they can’t send troops without our consent.” He added that the deployment has made locals afraid to call 911 and has eroded trust in local police, particularly among Black residents. “It’s clear they’re having this intimidating, fear-inducing effect,” Reich asserted.
The Trump administration counters that the deployment is legal and necessary, citing a law that allows the president or defense secretary to deploy the Guard for training or “other activity.” A government lawyer told Judge Cobb, “Crime in DC has been out of control,” and argued that the operation has been a success, with local police and the Guard “working together to make DC safer.” The Justice Department also claims the deployment has the support of Mayor Muriel Bowser, though Bowser has publicly criticized the National Guard presence.
Elsewhere, the legal landscape is equally complex. In Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry blocked Guard deployment to the area until the case is decided in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. The federal government agreed to extend the order but is still seeking an emergency order from the Supreme Court to allow deployment. Chicago and Illinois officials have asked the high court to continue blocking the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.”
In West Virginia, a civic group is challenging Governor Patrick Morrisey’s decision to send 300 to 400 Guard members to support Trump’s efforts in D.C. The group, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, argues that the governor exceeded his authority, as state law only permits such deployments for specific purposes like natural disasters or emergencies in other states. “The Governor cannot transform our citizen-soldiers into a roving police force available at the whim of federal officials who bypass proper legal channels,” the group’s attorneys wrote in court documents. The hearing on this matter was continued to November 3 to further examine the governor’s authority.
Amid these legal battles, incidents on the ground have further fueled tensions. In Alameda, California, a U-Haul truck incident near a Coast Guard base ended with the driver wounded and a bystander injured after law enforcement fired “defensive” shots. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the event “horrific” and said the agency “won’t stand for that anymore.” Protests erupted outside the building where Noem spoke, with demonstrators voicing opposition to federal enforcement actions in the Bay Area.
President Trump has since called off plans to surge federal law enforcement and immigration resources to San Francisco, citing conversations with local leaders and friends in the area. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee confirmed that planned Border Patrol operations in the greater Bay Area, including Oakland, have been canceled for now. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie also emphasized the city’s progress in addressing crime and economic growth.
In Chicago, federal law enforcement actions have drawn sharp criticism. Senior Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino is set to appear in court after being accused of violating a judge’s order restricting aggressive tactics at anti-ICE protests. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that Bovino and other agents acted properly, citing escalating violence at the protests. Meanwhile, personal stories like that of Genesis Ozuna, a 19-year-old whose mother was detained by ICE while selling food, have brought the human impact of these operations into focus. “Every time my sister realizes my mother is gone, it’s like she’s reliving the trauma from her absence,” Ozuna told lawmakers, according to CNN.
As these cases wind through the courts, the debate over federal authority, local autonomy, and the use of military force in American cities continues to define the national conversation. With decisions pending and protests ongoing, the outcome will shape the relationship between Washington and local governments—and the lives of countless residents—well beyond this week’s headlines.
