In a legal and political standoff that has drawn national attention, the Trump administration and the state of Oregon are locked in a high-stakes battle over the federal government’s authority to deploy National Guard troops to Portland. The dispute, which centers on the protection of federal property and personnel at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in South Portland, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over federal intervention in local affairs.
On November 16, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn a district court’s permanent injunction that barred the federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. This move followed District Judge Karin Immergut’s ruling earlier in the month, which found that President Trump had exceeded his authority by ordering hundreds of Oregon and California National Guard members to protect federal staff and property at the ICE office. According to documents obtained by KATU and KGW, Judge Immergut’s decision came after a three-day trial and was based on a detailed review of the events and circumstances on the ground.
Judge Immergut’s ruling was unequivocal: while she acknowledged that large-scale violent protests occurred in mid-June 2025, with crowds reaching as many as 450 people and incidents of fires, assaults on officers, and vandalism, the situation had changed dramatically by September. "The court acknowledged large-scale violent protests in June, but treated them as irrelevant to the President's determination just a few months later," federal attorneys wrote in their appeal, as reported by KATU. However, the judge found that these protests "quickly abated" and that by the time of the September deployment, crowds had diminished to between 8 and 15 people, who were mostly sitting in lawn chairs or walking around with low energy and minimal activity, according to court documents cited by KGW.
Portland Police Bureau officials provided testimony that further undermined the rationale for federal intervention. Commander Brian Hughes testified there was "no organized group dictating everyone's activity or behavior" at the protests. Assistant Chief Craig Dobson stated that from July 18 through September 27, the demonstrations required only "routine monitoring" and were "such a minor issue, that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility." These statements, included in court transcripts obtained by KGW, painted a picture of a city whose protests had largely fizzled out by the time federal troops were deployed.
Despite this, the Trump administration argued in its emergency motion that the President acted within his legal authority. The federal government claimed that regular forces were unable to enforce U.S. laws or adequately protect ICE personnel and property, pointing to ongoing threats, blocked driveways, and even a September 1 incident where protesters set up a "prop guillotine" outside the facility. According to court filings, federal attorneys insisted that "protesters' interference with the ability of federal officers to execute the laws, leading up to the President's federalization of the National Guard" constituted a significant obstacle under the law, referencing similar reasoning previously upheld by the 9th Circuit in a California case.
However, Judge Immergut found the evidence did not support the administration’s claims. The court noted that federal law enforcement had successfully managed the situation by bringing in additional officers from agencies such as Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Regional Director, Robert Cantu, testified he was "surprised" by the Guard deployment and had never requested it. Before the protests, FPS managed the Portland ICE facility with just four officers covering 100 federal facilities across Oregon. During the height of the demonstrations, FPS deployed 115 officers from other regions to Portland, and on some days, there were more federal officers than protesters outside the facility, as revealed in court records obtained by KGW.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield responded to the administration’s appeal by emphasizing the importance of accountability and the rule of law. "The district court’s ruling made it clear that this administration must be accountable to the truth and to the rule of law," Rayfield stated, as reported by KATU. Meanwhile, legal experts, such as Lewis & Clark College law professor Tung Yin, weighed in on the administration’s chances on appeal. Yin observed, "It's not that they can't win an appeal, but they would have to get a legal rule that essentially says, the president's determination is conclusive when the president says, my people can't enforce federal law."
The administration is seeking an administrative stay by November 21, 2025, to prevent the defederalization of Oregon Guard members, citing potential harms and disruption of the status quo caused by the injunction. Federal attorneys also argued that sending Guard members home would cause logistical problems and could result in loss of pay and health care benefits. Brigadier General Carrie L. Perez explained in a declaration that returning the troops would require transporting guardsmen to a designated site in Texas for medical and administrative screenings, a process that demands both time and manpower.
The political backdrop to the dispute is equally complex. President Trump ordered the September deployment after Oregon Governor Tina Kotek declined his request to voluntarily activate the state’s National Guard, stating "there was no insurrection or threat to public safety in Oregon," according to court documents cited by KGW. When Immergut’s initial rulings blocked the use of Oregon troops, Trump responded by ordering the deployment of California and Texas National Guard members to Portland. Judge Immergut’s order covers those out-of-state Guard members as well.
Notably, the 9th Circuit previously issued a brief hold on Immergut’s earlier temporary order in October, but a majority of the court’s judges later voted to reconsider the case, lifting that hold. The federal government’s current appeal is seeking, once again, to pause the district court’s injunction and maintain federal control of the Guard until the legal battle is resolved.
At the heart of the case is a fundamental question: when, if ever, can the president override the wishes of a state governor to federalize the National Guard in the absence of a clear rebellion or insurrection? Judge Immergut concluded that "even giving great deference to the President's determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard" under federal law. She found the administration’s determination was "simply untethered to the facts," and that the protests, while initially disruptive, had not prevented federal agents from carrying out their duties.
As the 9th Circuit prepares to weigh in, the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for the limits of presidential power in deploying military forces within U.S. borders. For now, the legal wrangling continues, with both sides awaiting the court’s decision and the city of Portland caught in the crossfire of a constitutional showdown.
