A federal judge has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland, even as his administration moved to send 300 Guard troops to Chicago. Clashes between the White House and Democratic governors who say the actions violate constitutional limits on presidential power continue to deepen.
Source: Spencer Platt / Getty
ABC News reports that U.S. DistrictJudge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order Saturday blocking the Oregon deployment for 14 days.
The judge, who was appointed by Trump, ruled that his basis for federalizing the Guard failed to meet the high bar required to do so without the governor’s consent. In her decision, Immergut said the protests in Portland were “not significantly violent or disruptive” enough to justify military intervention.
Immergut wrote in opposition to Trump’s actions.
“These incidents are inexcusable, but they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement.”
Her ruling cited the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, warning that Trump’s attempt risked blurring the line between civil and military authority.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach,” she stated. “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
ABC News further reports that the decision paused the deployment of about 200 soldiers who had been training on Oregon’s coast in anticipation of orders. The Trump administration plans to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously overturned a similar ruling that sought to block troop deployment in Los Angeles.
Judge Says Trump’s Claims Were “Untethered to the Facts”
Trump defended his actions by arguing that “war-ravaged Portland” needed protection for immigration facilities and federal property.
Source: CHRISTOPHER FURLONG / Getty
But Immergut called the president’s characterization “simply untethered to the facts” and said he likely exceeded his constitutional authority. Her ruling concluded that Trump’s actions appeared not to have been “conceived in good faith.”
ABC News states that Oregon officials celebrated the decision.
Gov. Tina Kotek said, “Justice has been served, and the truth has prevailed.”
State Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling a “wake-up call.
“No president is allowed to make up facts or rely on social media trolling when deploying the U.S. military in our cities.”
Trump Authorizes 300 National Guard Troops for Chicago
In HuffPost, while the Oregon decision was unfolding, Trump announced plans to deploy 300 Illinois National Guard troops to Chicago to “protect federal officers and assets” following a Border Patrol shooting that left a woman injured.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the president acted in response to “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness” that local leaders “have not quelled.”
HuffPost reports that Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker denounced the move as “a manufactured performance — not a serious effort to protect public safety.” Pritzker said the Pentagon gave him an ultimatum.
“Call up your troops, or we will.” He called the order “outrageous and un-American,” adding, “For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control.”
Trump’s pattern of military escalation in Democratic-led cities mirrors previous deployments to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and other areas — many of which have faced legal challenges. The rulings and reactions highlight a widening divide between federal authority and state sovereignty. The pushback from governors like Oregon’s Tina Kotek and Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker signals growing resistance to what they describe as political theater disguised as law enforcement.
Ultimately, the tension between state leaders and the former president underscores a recurring test of constitutional power — whether public safety should be safeguarded by collaboration or commanded through force. America awaits the outcome of these legal battles and their impact on the balance between state rights and federal authority in future crises.
In regard to political optics, how do we continue the American dream while navigating unrest, leadership, and the limits of presidential control?
