In a dramatic legal showdown that has rippled from the streets of Portland to the halls of federal power, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut has issued a sweeping order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops from any state to Oregon. The decision, made late Sunday, October 5, 2025, places a temporary but decisive halt on the controversial federalization of state-based military forces to quell protests—an action that has ignited fierce debate over constitutional authority, state sovereignty, and the limits of presidential power.
The ruling came after days of escalating tension, as the Trump administration sought to reinforce federal personnel at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility in Portland. According to Oregon Capital Chronicle, Judge Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, first issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, October 4, specifically preventing the mobilization of the Oregon National Guard. But when federal officials responded by ordering 200 federalized California National Guard troops to Portland overnight, and prepared to send up to 400 more from Texas, the judge swiftly broadened her order to bar the relocation of National Guard members to Oregon from any state or from Washington, D.C.
"I see those as direct contravention of the order that this court issued yesterday," Immergut stated during an emergency telephonic hearing, as reported by Oregon Capital Chronicle. The judge’s frustration was palpable as she pressed Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department attorney, on whether the government was attempting to sidestep her initial ruling. "You’re an officer of the court. Do you believe this is an appropriate way to deal with my order, or an order that a judge issues that you disagree with?" she asked pointedly.
The legal foundation for Immergut’s order was clear. As Fox News highlighted, she ruled that the Trump administration’s actions violated federal statute 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights against federal overreach. "It appears to violate both 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment," Immergut said during the proceedings. She further wrote in her opinion, "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 Trump administration, undeterred, has indicated it will appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department maintains that the president retains lawful authority to deploy National Guard forces in cases of "domestic unrest," a point that will likely be at the heart of any appellate arguments. But for now, Immergut’s order stands, effective for at least 14 days, through October 19, 2025.
The immediate catalyst for the legal battle was a series of protests at the Portland ICE facility. According to BBC, these demonstrations have been ongoing, fueled by opposition to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. While the White House has characterized the unrest as a threat to public safety—justifying the deployment of federalized troops—Immergut was unconvinced. She found no evidence that the protests constituted a "rebellion" or posed a "danger of a rebellion," conditions required by law for such federal intervention.
"You have to have a colorable claim that Oregon conditions warrant deploying the National Guard—you don’t," Immergut told the government’s lawyer, as reported by Fox News. During Sunday’s hearing, Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general, Scott Kennedy, described the federal government’s shifting strategies as feeling like "a game of rhetorical Whac-A-Mole." The state, along with California and the city of Portland, had sought the broader restraining order after learning of the new troop deployments from Texas and California.
The Pentagon confirmed that 200 California National Guard members had been reassigned to Portland to "support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal personnel performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property," as BBC detailed. Just before the hearing, a memo from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth surfaced, stating that up to 400 Texas National Guard troops would be federalized for "federal protection missions where needed, including in the cities of Portland and Chicago."
Local officials were blindsided. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker both said they had received no communication from the federal government about the planned deployment of Texas National Guard troops to their states. Pritzker, in a statement reported by BBC, called the proposed deployment "Trump’s invasion" and insisted there was "no reason" to send troops without the "knowledge, consent, or cooperation" of local officials. He warned that such actions would only inflame tensions and incite further protests, accusing the administration of creating a "warzone" as a pretext for its response.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, for his part, stood firmly with the president. "You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it," he said in a statement on X, as cited by BBC. The sharp divide among state leaders underscores the broader political battle over federal versus state authority—a recurring theme throughout Trump’s second term.
California Governor Gavin Newsom also celebrated the court’s intervention, posting, "BREAKING: We just won in court—again. A federal judge BLOCKED Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to DEPLOY 300 OF OUR NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO PORTLAND. The court granted our request for a Temporary Restraining Order—HALTING ANY FEDERALIZATION, RELOCATION, OR DEPLOYMENT of ANY GUARD MEMBERS TO OREGON FROM ANY STATE. Trump’s abuse of power won’t stand."
The protests in Portland, while largely peaceful, have not been without incident. On the evening of October 5, about 150 people gathered around the ICE facility, according to Oregon Capital Chronicle. Federal agents responded by deploying pink smoke and detaining two individuals. State and local officials have urged demonstrators to keep their distance from the facility, even as they continue to support the right to peaceful protest.
This controversy is not isolated. Over the summer, Trump directed National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, asserting the need to quell unrest and support law enforcement. In September, a federal judge in California ruled Trump’s deployment of the Guard to Los Angeles illegal, citing similar constitutional concerns—a decision the administration is currently appealing, as BBC noted.
As the legal and political wrangling continues, the fate of federal troop deployments in Portland and other cities hangs in the balance. Immergut’s order, for now, draws a firm line, reinforcing the principle that even in turbulent times, the rule of law—and the boundaries between federal and state power—must be respected.
