In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing legal and political battle over federal intervention in local protests, the Trump administration has appealed a federal court ruling that barred the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The move comes after months of wrangling between state and federal authorities, heated courtroom debates, and a swirl of public controversy over the president’s authority to federalize state military forces during periods of civil unrest.
On November 17, 2025, the Trump administration filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court, seeking to overturn a permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut earlier this month. The injunction blocked the federalization and deployment of hundreds of Oregon and California National Guard troops to Portland, where protests at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility have drawn national attention since June. According to KATU, the administration’s emergency motion requests a stay by November 21, aiming to prevent the defederalization of Oregon Guard members and maintain the current deployment status while legal proceedings continue.
The roots of the dispute stretch back to mid-June 2025, when approximately 450 protesters gathered outside the ICE facility in South Portland. The demonstrations, which included instances of starting fires, assaulting officers, blocking traffic, and vandalizing property, prompted the Department of Homeland Security to seek military assistance. President Trump responded by federalizing a portion of the Oregon and California National Guard, arguing that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property. The administration contends that federal law authorizes such action when regular forces are unable to enforce U.S. laws or when there is a rebellion or imminent threat of one.
However, Judge Immergut found that the facts on the ground did not justify federal intervention. In her ruling, she noted that Portland Police had designated a gathering at the ICE facility as a riot only once during the summer. Further, she determined that the protests, while occasionally violent, had not prevented federal agents from carrying out their duties. Immergut concluded that Trump had exceeded his authority under Title 10, the statute governing federalization of the National Guard, because there was no evidence of a rebellion or that law enforcement was unable to execute federal law. As reported by The Oregonian/OregonLive, the judge stated that the president had “no lawful basis” for the deployment, and her decision was echoed in a permanent injunction issued on November 7, 2025.
The legal wrangling did not end there. The Trump administration’s latest appeal argues that the court failed to adequately consider the scale and severity of the protests, which officials claim made it difficult to enforce immigration laws. The administration maintains that threats against federal officials are unpredictable and that the president’s determination of necessity should be conclusive. “The court acknowledged large-scale violent protests in June, but treated them as irrelevant to the President’s determination just a few months later,” the federal government wrote in its motion, according to KATU.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who has played a central role in challenging the federal deployments, responded to the appeal by emphasizing the importance of accountability. “The district court’s ruling made it clear that this administration must be accountable to the truth and to the rule of law,” Rayfield said on November 14, 2025. His office has yet to respond to the Trump administration’s motion to stay the injunction.
Meanwhile, the practical implications of the court’s decision are already being felt on the ground. On November 15, the number of Oregon National Guard troops on standby in Portland was reduced to 100, down from several hundred earlier in the summer. These troops are scheduled to remain under federal control until November 26, though the Department of War has signaled its intention to extend the mobilization. According to ABC News and OPB, all 200 California National Guard members who had been deployed to Oregon under Trump’s orders are set to return home in the coming days, though 100 will remain under federal control.
The California troops, who had been stationed at Camp Withycombe in Clackamas County, were originally sent to Oregon in June to bolster security at the ICE facility. However, court records and statements from state officials confirm that the California Guard never performed duties at the facility itself. In fact, only nine Oregon Guard members were ever sent to the ICE building, and that was for a single day—an action that Judge Immergut later described as “deeply troubled” due to its timing after her temporary restraining order.
California’s response to the deployment has been pointed. A spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom’s office told OPB, “Donald Trump — our mentally ill president — never should have illegally deployed our troops in the first place. We’re glad they’re finally coming home. It’s long overdue!” The Newsom administration, along with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, has consistently argued that the president violated both states’ rights by federalizing their National Guard troops over their objections. Deputy Attorney General Jane Reilley made this argument forcefully in federal court in October, contending that the deployments set a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.
Beyond Oregon, the ripple effects of the court’s rulings and the administration’s legal maneuvers have been felt in other cities as well. The New York Times reported that 200 Texas National Guard members deployed to Chicago would also be returning home, part of a broader shift as federal authorities reassess the need for a military presence in urban areas. U.S. Northern Command, which oversees domestic military operations, indicated on social media that it is “constantly refining and improving our plans and capabilities to defend the Homeland,” and remains prepared to protect federal functions wherever necessary.
The controversy over National Guard deployments has also spilled into the political arena. President Trump has publicly criticized Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for their handling of protests, declaring that both “should be in jail.” Pritzker fired back, “Come and get me!” while Johnson responded, “I’m not going anywhere.” The war of words underscores the high stakes and deep divisions surrounding the use of federal troops in American cities—a debate that is now expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Legal experts say the administration faces an uphill battle in its appeal. Lewis & Clark College law professor Tung Yin noted, “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 courts, so far, have repeatedly rejected the administration’s claims that protests were so uncontrollable as to require National Guard intervention.
As the legal process unfolds, questions remain about the effectiveness of deploying military forces to quell civil unrest. Some observers have pointed out that, despite the presence of troops, protests have continued in cities like Portland, Los Angeles, Memphis, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. The true impact of these deployments—both on public safety and on the relationship between state and federal authorities—remains an open question, with the Supreme Court poised to weigh in soon.
For now, most National Guard troops are heading home, and the nation waits to see how the courts—and the public—will ultimately judge the president’s actions.
