On October 4, 2025, a federal judge in Oregon delivered a decisive blow to the Trump administration’s plan to deploy the National Guard in Portland, temporarily blocking the move and igniting a fierce debate over federal power, local sovereignty, and the true state of unrest in the city. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, came after a contentious hearing in which federal and local officials painted starkly different pictures of ongoing protests outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post on September 27, had authorized the use of “all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” According to Axios, roughly 200 Oregon National Guard troops had already been sent to Camp Rilea in Warrenton for training in crowd control and use-of-force protocols, with plans to deploy them to Portland in the coming days.
But as Oregon Public Broadcasting reported, Judge Immergut was deeply skeptical of the administration’s justification for federalizing the Guard. She questioned the Department of Justice’s reliance on a presidential social media post as evidence of necessity, pointedly asking, “Really? A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities? That’s really what I should be relying on?”
The nearly two-hour hearing on October 3 laid bare the conflicting narratives. Eric Hamilton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, argued that the city’s “record does show a persistent threat,” citing incidents such as high-powered lights being shined into federal agents’ eyes, protesters throwing rocks, and even following officers home. Hamilton also referenced the ICE facility’s three-week closure over the summer due to violence and claimed demonstrators had blocked facility entrances and thrown incendiary devices, rocks, and bricks at law enforcement.
Yet attorneys for Portland and the State of Oregon presented a markedly different reality. They pointed to police reports and affidavits from top Portland commanders showing that, in the weeks leading up to Trump’s announcement, protest activity had been minimal. One police email described gatherings of “eight to 15 people at a given time, mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around,” with “energy low, minimal activity.” As Oregon Live documented, sworn statements indicated that demonstrations were under control, with about two dozen arrests since a nightly encampment began in the summer.
Judge Immergut’s 31-page opinion, as highlighted by CNN, found that the federal government failed to provide evidence that the protests were beyond the capacity of local law enforcement. “The protests were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days—or even weeks—leading up to the President’s directive,” she wrote. The judge concluded that Oregon and Portland “are likely to succeed on their claim that the President exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.” She warned that the administration’s arguments, if accepted, “risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”
The temporary restraining order, which expires on October 18, could be extended for another 14 days. Lawyers for the Trump administration have signaled their intention to appeal, keeping the legal battle—and the political spotlight—firmly fixed on Portland.
Meanwhile, the city’s protests continued to simmer. On the evening of October 3, Portland Police Bureau officers monitored demonstrations at the ICE facility, where most people complied with police instructions to stay on the sidewalk. However, two individuals who engaged in aggressive behavior and used sound amplification devices were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Conservative influencer Nick Sortor was also arrested for disorderly conduct during a protest the previous night; his case is now under review by the Department of Justice for possible viewpoint discrimination, as reported by The Associated Press.
Police Chief Bob Day, speaking at a Friday news conference, insisted that “arrests made were based upon probable cause, not based upon individuals,” emphasizing that “there is no political bias associated with our enforcement.” The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the charges and will decide whether to proceed before Sortor’s arraignment on Monday.
Local and state officials have fiercely pushed back against Trump’s characterization of Portland as a “war zone.” Oregon Governor Tina Kotek declared, “Portland and the State of Oregon believe in the rule of law and can manage our own local public safety needs. There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security. And there is no need for military troops.” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson echoed this sentiment, stating, “The necessary number of troops is zero,” and suggesting that federal resources would be better spent on engineers, teachers, or outreach workers rather than “a short, expensive, and fruitless show of force.”
Amid the heated rhetoric, the data tells a quieter story. According to midyear crime statistics, Portland’s violent crime rate has actually decreased compared to 2024. Homicides dropped by more than 50%, from 35 to 17. Reported rapes fell from 185 to 163, robberies from 525 to 491, and aggravated assaults from 1,452 to 1,442. These figures, noted by Oregon Public Broadcasting, run counter to the narrative of escalating chaos advanced by the White House.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has doubled down. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on October 3 that the president was reviewing potential funding cuts to Oregon, warning, “we will not fund states that allow anarchy.” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has countered by filing a lawsuit, alleging that the planned deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of troops for domestic law enforcement, and infringes on state sovereignty. The state’s legal team has argued that the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard is limited to situations of “rebellion” or foreign invasion—neither of which, they contend, applies to Portland’s protests.
The controversy in Portland is part of a broader pattern. The Trump administration has cited protests at ICE facilities in other cities, including Chicago, as justification for federal troop deployments. In Chicago, President Trump authorized 300 Illinois National Guard members to protect federal officers after protests near an ICE facility resulted in more than a dozen arrests on October 3. Local officials there, too, have resisted federal intervention, with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker refusing to call up the Guard and denouncing federal pressure as “absolutely outrageous and un-American.”
As the legal and political wrangling continues, Portland remains at the center of a national debate over the balance of power between the federal government and the states, the limits of executive authority, and the line between protest and disorder. For now, the city’s streets are quieter than the headlines suggest, and its fate—like that of other cities facing similar federal scrutiny—hangs in the balance as the courts, politicians, and the public wrestle with what comes next.
