On October 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy 200 National Guard members to Portland, Oregon, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing tug-of-war between federal authority and state sovereignty. The decision, stemming from a lawsuit filed by Oregon’s state and city officials, has reignited debates over the appropriate use of military force in domestic affairs and the president’s power to intervene in local protests.
Judge Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, did not mince words in her ruling. She asserted that the Trump administration’s justification for federalizing the Oregon National Guard was “simply untethered to the facts.” According to reporting by The Associated Press and Democracy Docket, Immergut found that the protests in Portland—centered around the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building—were largely peaceful and small in scale, often involving just a handful of demonstrators on a nightly basis. “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote, underscoring the lack of significant violence or disruption that might warrant such an extraordinary measure.
The legal battle began after President Trump, via a series of social media posts on September 27, 2025, declared that Portland was “war-ravaged” and that its ICE facility was “under siege” by “domestic terrorists.” He directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to federalize the Oregon National Guard, authorizing “Full Force, if necessary.” The following day, Hegseth issued a memo formalizing the deployment, setting the stage for a swift legal challenge from Governor Tina Kotek and Portland city leaders.
Oregon officials, joined by Portland’s legal team, argued before the court that the president’s depiction of the city was a “fictional narrative” and that his reasoning for the deployment was not grounded in reality. Scott Kennedy, Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general, described the administration’s public safety claims as “based largely on a fictional narrative.” Caroline Turco, representing the city, added that Trump’s perception was “not the reality on the ground.”
The judge’s order, which is set to expire in 14 days but could be extended, bars the implementation of Defense Secretary Hegseth’s memo pending further arguments. A trial has been scheduled for October 29, 2025, to determine the longer-term fate of the deployment. In the meantime, the Trump administration has filed a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, vowing to fight the ruling. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
The legal foundation for the president’s authority to federalize the National Guard is rooted in 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that allows such action in cases of insurrection, rebellion, or when regular law enforcement is unable to execute federal laws. However, Judge Immergut emphasized that this deference to the executive is not absolute. “Generally speaking, the president is allowed ‘a great level of deference’ to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States,” she wrote. “But that has not been the case in Portland.”
In fact, court declarations from both Portland and Oregon state police contradicted the Trump administration’s assertions. The demonstrations outside the ICE facility were described as “small and uneventful,” with no evidence of the kind of rebellion or widespread violence that would justify military intervention. On September 28, 2025, a peaceful march drew thousands downtown without incident, while a separate protest near the ICE facility resulted in only two arrests on assault charges. According to BBC and Democracy Docket, even the larger protests remained confined to a single block in a city of over 636,000 residents.
Judge Immergut’s ruling also invoked the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states, and warned that federalizing state Guard troops on shaky grounds risks undermining the constitutional balance of power. “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” she wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
The Trump administration’s approach in Portland is not an isolated case. Across the country, similar moves to federalize the National Guard have sparked legal challenges and political outcry. In Los Angeles, a federal judge found the president’s deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and Marines illegal, though some troops were allowed to remain as long as they did not enforce civilian laws. That ruling, too, is under appeal. Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced that the Trump administration would imminently federalize the state’s National Guard to assist law enforcement in Chicago and elsewhere, further fueling a nationwide debate.
The memory of 2020 still looms large over Portland’s streets. That year, after the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, Trump sent federal officers to Portland to protect federal property during months of racial justice protests. The result was nightly clashes, widespread use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and viral videos of federal officers detaining protesters in unmarked vehicles. A Department of Homeland Security inspector general report later found that many of the federal officers lacked the training and equipment necessary for such a volatile mission. In 2025, the government agreed to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, compensating several plaintiffs for injuries sustained during those protests.
As for the current situation in Portland, the judge’s ruling has been met with a mix of relief and apprehension. While state and city officials see it as a victory for local control and civil liberties, the Trump administration and its supporters argue that decisive federal action is necessary to maintain law and order. The Department of Justice maintains that the president must be able to respond to threats against federal property, even if local officials disagree with his assessment.
With a trial set for later this month and an appeal already underway, the legal and political fate of the Portland deployment remains uncertain. But for now, Judge Immergut’s decision stands as a reminder of the delicate balance between federal power and state autonomy—a balance that, at least for the moment, has tipped in favor of Oregon’s right to govern its own streets.
