A federal judge delivered a major blow to President Trump’s plan to send hundreds of National Guard troops to Portland, Ore., temporarily halting the controversial deployment in a ruling Saturday. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order requested by Oregon and Portland officials, effectively blocking the Defense Secretary’s memo that authorized federalizing the National Guard over the state’s objections.
In a pointed statement, Judge Immergut—appointed by Trump himself—made clear the line being drawn: “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
The ruling deals a significant setback to the Trump administration’s attempt to federalize the troops despite fierce local resistance. Not only did Immergut deny the administration’s request to pause her order during the appeals process, but she also set a trial date for October 29. Her order, set to last 14 days initially, could be extended.
The lawsuit from Oregon and Portland officials came after Trump vowed to protect what he called “war-ravaged” Portland and its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices, which he described as “under siege.” The administration’s rationale for deploying troops centers on the narrative of ongoing chaos and danger, but state and city lawyers dismantled that claim in court.
Scott Kennedy, Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general, called Trump’s justification “based largely on a fictional narrative” about the city’s safety. Caroline Turco, representing Portland, added bluntly that Trump’s view of the situation “is not the reality on the ground.”
Trump has long cast Portland as a bastion of left-wing lawlessness, painting months of protests—peaceful and otherwise—that erupted after George Floyd’s death as nothing short of anarchy. The president described Portland’s protests as “war-ravaged,” using the language of siege and battle.
The Trump administration argued the courts should give significant deference to the president’s decision to federalize the National Guard. Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton said “vicious and cruel radicals” had “laid siege” to Portland’s ICE facility, forcing its closure for three weeks during the summer.
When Judge Immergut probed whether there was still a “sovereign interest in play,” referring to the state’s authority, Hamilton insisted the National Guard’s mission was strictly federal.
But in her ruling, Immergut did not buy the administration’s framing. She acknowledged the president deserves “a great level of deference,” but said that does not mean ignoring reality. “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote.
Trump’s decision to deploy troops came after he posted on Truth Social on September 27, saying he was directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to send troops to protect Portland and its ICE facilities from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” authorizing “Full Force, if necessary.” Hegseth followed up with a memo the next day formalizing the deployment, despite Oregon Governor Tina Kotek’s objections.
This ruling signals the judiciary’s resistance to what many see as federal overreach, emphasizing that the Constitution remains the ultimate check—even in times of political theater and tense civil unrest. Portland may be the latest flashpoint in the ongoing battle over federal power, local control, and the limits of presidential authority in deploying military force on American soil.
The debate over how best to maintain public order without trampling on constitutional rights is far from over. But for now, the courts have stepped in, drawing a clear boundary: the Constitution, not the commander-in-chief’s rhetoric, will guide the rule of law.
