On November 11, 2025, a group of veterans led a poignant march through the streets of Portland, Oregon, marking Veterans Day not with parades or speeches, but with a protest at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. The demonstration—part of the Veterans National Day of Action—began at Elizabeth Caruthers Park in South Portland and wound its way to the ICE building several blocks away. As evening set in, participants left flowers at the facility, a symbolic tribute to those detained and, in the words of organizers, "harmed" by U.S. immigration policies (KATU).
The protest was far from an isolated event. For months, Portland’s ICE facility has been the site of regular demonstrations, drawing national attention and sparking a fierce legal and political battle over the Trump administration’s efforts to deploy the National Guard to protect federal properties in the city. Just days before the Veterans Day march, on November 7, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a sweeping 106-page ruling, granting the State of Oregon and the city a permanent injunction against President Trump’s order to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Portland (KATU; ProPublica).
Judge Immergut’s decision was clear and forceful. "There was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard," she wrote, underscoring that the administration’s justification for military intervention did not meet the legal threshold (Article 2). The judge’s ruling also directly addressed the administration’s rhetoric about "Antifa," stating that, according to Portland Police Bureau Commander Franz Schoening, "‘Antifa’ is not an organized group and is a term frequently misused." There was, she concluded, no evidence of a coordinated violent movement, only scattered references to ideology among a few protesters (Article 2).
The protests in Portland are part of a broader national wave of veteran-led opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. Under the banner "Vets Say No," demonstrations have sprung up across the country, united by a call to reject ICE, military occupation of U.S. cities, fascism, and cuts to community services. Organizers of the Portland event made their message explicit: "This administration is asking members of the military to go against their own conscience and violate the constitution. We see nothing to celebrate when members of the military are being asked to turn on their own communities, free speech and due process rights are being routinely violated" (KATU).
University of Massachusetts at Amherst legal scholar Jamie Rowen, who studies veterans’ issues, explained the deeper concerns motivating many participants. Rowen noted that Trump’s policy "reminds many Vietnam veterans she speaks to about the ‘moral injury’ they suffered in combat." She elaborated, "They’re worried that what you’re going to see in these younger active duty military men engaging in these types of enforcement is a similar moral injury, where they’re going to feel that they were participating in something that was wrong and immoral, and that’s going to affect their sense of self moving forward" (Article 2).
For some veterans, the issue cuts even deeper. Beyond the moral and constitutional concerns, they are "absolutely livid" about the impact of government shutdowns on their benefits and the perceived insult of using troops against their own communities. Rowen added, "These are people who are trying to get their GI Bill benefits for education. They can’t actually access their benefits because, even though most of the VA workers are exempt from the shutdown, there are still closures at the agencies that are providing the benefits for veterans. And they’re livid. They’re absolutely livid" (Article 2).
The Trump administration has maintained that National Guard troops are needed to protect ICE facilities in "war-ravaged" Portland, describing the city as under siege by violent groups. However, an extensive ProPublica review of federal prosecutions, local arrests, police summaries, sworn testimony, and hundreds of protest videos found a stark gap between these claims and the reality on the ground. While there were certainly confrontational and, at times, violent incidents—especially in June 2025, when Portland police arrested 28 people and federal prosecutors charged 22 with offenses including arson and assault—the frequency and intensity of violence dropped sharply after July 4 (ProPublica).
From July 5 to September 4, only three criminal charges were announced, with just one involving a violent offense (which was later dropped). Most days saw no arrests or charges, even when federal officers used force, including tear gas and less-lethal weapons. In one notable incident on September 1, masked officers dispersed protesters who had placed a prop guillotine in front of the ICE building. The officers responded with tear gas and seized the guillotine, but no criminal charges were filed (ProPublica).
Experts who reviewed videos of the protests for ProPublica, including former police chief Brian Higgins and law professor Seth Stoughton, raised questions about the conduct of federal officers. Higgins questioned, "If you used force, why did you not follow through with an arrest?" Stoughton observed that some uses of force appeared "gratuitous," serving no purpose other than intimidation. "Intimidation is not a lawful government objective," he said (ProPublica).
Despite the administration’s assertions of chaos, Judge Immergut found that there was "no credible evidence of any significant damage to the ICE facility in the months before the President’s callout and no credible evidence that ICE was unable to execute immigration laws." She noted that while protesters sometimes blocked the driveway, "federal law enforcement officers were able to clear the driveway" (ProPublica).
The legal battle is far from over. With active injunctions blocking troop deployments in Portland and Chicago, Trump has only been able to send the military to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court considers the extent of presidential authority over U.S. troops on domestic soil (Article 2). Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on the case, and the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act—a law with a lower bar for military intervention—remains a looming question (ProPublica).
The events unfolding in Portland reflect a nation wrestling with fundamental questions about the use of military force, the rights of protesters, and the meaning of patriotism. As veterans and their supporters continue to march, lay flowers, and raise their voices, the city stands as a microcosm of a much larger debate—one that shows no signs of quieting anytime soon.
