The three-day federal trial over President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland wrapped up on Friday, October 31, 2025, thrusting the city into the national spotlight as a test case for presidential authority, state sovereignty, and the boundaries of federal power. At the heart of the legal battle is the question of whether ongoing protests outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland justify the extraordinary step of federalizing National Guard troops, or whether such a move represents an overreach—one of the most significant infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon and California’s history, as state attorneys argued in court.
The trial, presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, comes at a critical juncture. Two temporary restraining orders have kept the deployment on hold for the past month, but both are set to expire imminently: the first, blocking Oregon National Guard deployment, expires on Saturday, November 1; the second, blocking all states’ National Guard deployments, expires at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 2. Immergut promised a decision before the final deadline, acknowledging the urgency: “I understand the looming deadline on Sunday so you’ll have a decision by Sunday,” she told the packed courtroom.
The legal arguments have been fierce and deeply polarized. According to Oregon Capital Chronicle, federal attorneys painted a picture of an overwhelmed Federal Protective Service, chronically understaffed and spread thin since protests began in June. Robert Cantu, regional director for the Federal Protective Service in the Northwest, testified that typically only four federal police officers are stationed in Oregon to protect around 100 federal buildings, including the embattled ICE facility. He explained, “I did not make that request for support. That is done above me,” when asked if he had requested more staff, highlighting a disconnect between on-the-ground needs and federal decision-making.
Yet, Oregon’s lawyers countered that the federal government has “ample, untapped” resources at its disposal. Brian Marshall, a senior assistant attorney general, pointed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statistics showing 80,000 law enforcement officers nationwide and data that during the summer 2020 protests, DHS sent 576 law enforcement officers to Portland. “The federal government has failed to show that officers have been unable to enforce federal law. There must be more than ‘minimal interference,’” argued Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Kennedy, as reported by The Oregonian.
In the days leading up to Trump’s September 27, 2025, order to deploy troops, the number of federal officers at the ICE facility was roughly equal to the number of protesters, according to city data presented at trial. Moreover, the state’s lawyers emphasized that private contracted guards, who can detain but not arrest, outnumber federal police officers at federal buildings, further calling into question the necessity of National Guard intervention.
From the federal government’s perspective, the ongoing protests have forced DHS to continually re-task personnel to guard the ICE facility, siphoning resources away from enforcing immigration laws. “The bottom line is that DHS needs help. The Guard is needed,” U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton stated during closing remarks, as reported by OPB. ICE regional field director Camilla Wamsley testified that there are 20-30 ICE officers in Portland dedicated to enforcement and removal operations, aiming for 30 arrests per day across Oregon, Washington, and Alaska—double last year’s target. Most of her region’s special response teams, she said, have been assigned to guard the Portland ICE building. Wamsley supported having the National Guard take over security so ICE officers could return to their primary duties, but admitted she had not personally requested the deployment.
The administration also claimed that Portland police have refused to help due to Oregon’s sanctuary law, suggesting the city was “singling out the ICE building for disfavored treatment.” However, local officials and police supervisors pushed back hard on this narrative. Multiple Portland Police Bureau witnesses testified that local officers have been actively engaged in monitoring and managing the protests. In fact, they said, their efforts have sometimes been hampered by federal officers’ indiscriminate use of tear gas and other crowd control weapons. Portland police Cmdr. Franz Schoening described being “startled” by what he saw as unjustified use of tear gas and less-lethal munitions on passive protesters, an approach he characterized as “inappropriate” and excessive.
Financially, the city has felt the strain. Since Trump announced the deployment, the Portland Police Bureau has spent nearly $900,000 extra on police and resources to help with crowd control, according to Assistant Chief Craig Dobson. He also voiced concerns about the lack of crowd control training among federal officers and Guard members who might be deployed. Dobson himself was among the Portland Police officers tear gassed by federal officers at a protest at the ICE facility on October 18.
The timeline of protest activity was another focal point. Plaintiffs argued that protest activity peaked in mid-June 2025 and never reached that level again prior to the September 28 deployment order. They contended that any subsequent intensification of protests was a reaction to the threat of military intervention, not a justification for it. “The defendants cannot, in good faith, cause the very emergency that they seek to address with the National Guard,” Kennedy asserted in court.
Legal wrangling over the restraining orders has added another layer of complexity. Immergut’s first order on October 4 blocked the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops, but the Trump administration responded by sending in troops from California, prompting a second restraining order a day later. Both orders have already been extended once, and the administration has appealed the first to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now set for an en banc hearing with 11 judges, but the troops, though federalized, cannot be deployed pending the appeals process.
Immergut herself has expressed frustration over the tight timeline and the federal government’s refusal to agree to a brief extension to maintain the status quo while she reviews the evidence. She asked both sides to submit additional briefs over the weekend and pressed lawyers to clarify key legal terms such as “rebellion” and “regular forces,” acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the case: “I’ve never had a trial like this quite honestly,” she said.
Whatever the outcome, both sides have signaled that they will appeal any adverse decision, meaning the legal battle is far from over. As the hours tick down to Judge Immergut’s ruling, the city of Portland—and the nation—waits to see how the courts will balance federal authority, state sovereignty, and the realities of protest and public safety in a time of deep division.
