Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s National Guard Deployments to Portland and Chicago
A US federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s plan to deploy National Guard troops from Texas and California to Portland, Oregon, escalating a legal battle over the president’s authority to federalize state military forces. The ruling, issued late Sunday, follows a previous decision by the same court denying the administration’s attempt to deploy Oregon’s own National Guard to the city.
The legal challenges center on the administration’s efforts to address what it describes as “out-of-control crime” in several Democrat-led cities amid ongoing protests related to immigration enforcement policies. The administration has also authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, Illinois, for the same stated purpose.
US District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by President Trump, issued the temporary restraining order after California and Oregon sought to block the deployment of troops from other states to Portland. The Pentagon had recently confirmed the reassignment of 200 California National Guard members to support US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal personnel.
During a Sunday emergency hearing, Judge Immergut questioned federal government lawyers about whether the deployment of out-of-state troops was a deliberate attempt to circumvent her earlier ruling regarding Oregon’s National Guard. In that prior decision, she argued that using the military to suppress unrest without a state’s consent could jeopardize the sovereignty of states and exacerbate tensions within Portland. The current ruling remains in effect until at least October 19. The White House has not yet issued a response.
The administration has previously maintained that President Trump is exercising his “lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.” However, Judge Immergut found no evidence to suggest that recent protests necessitated the presence of federalized National Guard troops.
The dispute extends beyond Oregon, with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker condemning the planned deployment of 400 Texas National Guard members to his state, as well as Oregon and other locations. Pritzker labeled the move “Trump’s invasion,” asserting that there was “no reason” to send troops into states without the “knowledge, consent, or cooperation” of local officials. He warned that the authorization of troops would likely incite further protests and accused the administration of attempting to create a “warzone” to justify its response.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott swiftly defended the deployment, stating he “fully authorized” President Trump’s decision to mobilize the Texas National Guard “to ensure safety for federal officials.” Abbott asserted, “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Similar protests related to increased immigration enforcement have occurred in Chicago, where a violent incident on Saturday involved immigration authorities opening fire on an armed woman after she and others allegedly rammed law enforcement vehicles with their cars. The woman’s condition remains unclear, but officials reported she drove herself to a hospital.
The administration’s actions have also drawn scrutiny regarding the designation of “Antifa” – a loosely organized movement of far-left activists – as a domestic terrorist organization. President Trump recently signed an executive order enacting this designation, citing concerns about the group’s alleged presence in cities like Portland.
This is not the first instance of the Trump administration attempting to utilize the National Guard in a manner typically reserved for state governors. Over the summer, troops were deployed to Washington, DC, and Los Angeles under similar pretenses. In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the administration’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was illegal, violating a law that restricts the federal government’s use of military force domestically. The administration is currently appealing that decision.
The National Guard, the primary combat reserve of the Army and Air Force, can be activated by either a state governor or the US president. While often deployed for disaster relief, its use in quelling domestic unrest raises complex legal and constitutional questions.
