PORTLAND, Ore. — For more than three months, images of Portland’s protests have been splashed across television screens and social media feeds, sparking starkly different portrayals. Some see peaceful demonstrations, others see riots. Now, those dueling narratives are moving from the streets to the federal courthouse, where a judge will decide whether President Donald Trump overstepped in sending federalized National Guard troops to the city.
State Pushback Against Federal Deployment
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson argue that Trump’s deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members is unlawful. The trio has filed a lawsuit and requested an emergency restraining order to block the federal order.
Trump, however, has characterized Portland as “war-ravaged” and under siege by “domestic terrorists” at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. In remarks to senior military leaders, he even suggested U.S. cities could serve as “training grounds” for American armed forces.
Also Read
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, will weigh the state’s request for a temporary block of the deployment. The broader lawsuit will continue regardless, but the ruling could set a critical precedent on the limits of presidential power.
Two Portraits of the Protests
The courtroom battle reflects two clashing depictions of Portland’s protests.
On one side, local law enforcement and prosecutors insist the protests have been persistent but manageable. Craig Dobson, an assistant chief with the Portland Police Bureau, stated in a sworn declaration:
“Portland is not under siege, war-ravaged, or otherwise a particularly violent or unruly major city. In fact, on any given weekend, the nightlife in Portland’s entertainment district has warranted greater PPB resources than the small, nightly protests in front of the ICE facility.”
Dobson outlined that between June 11 and June 25, police made 25 arrests, after which the protests diminished enough that a special protest team was deactivated. Activity resumed in late September, coinciding with Trump’s federal call-up.
On the other side, federal officials paint a more dire picture. Cammila Wamsley, director of Portland’s ICE office, said in her filing that “criminal agitators” have broken gates and windows, set fires, spray-painted security cameras, and targeted officers with lasers. She noted that federal law enforcement made more than 20 arrests during the summer, separate from local police actions.
Legal Battle Over Presidential Power
The central question before Judge Immergut is whether Trump’s order falls within the president’s legal authority to federalize National Guard units.
Legal scholars say the case is significant because there is little precedent governing how far troops may go in domestic settings. The president can federalize the Guard in certain circumstances, such as insurrection or when federal law cannot be enforced locally.
But critics argue those thresholds have not been met. Rachel VanLandingham, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School and retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, believes the order is unlawful.
“We do not have massive riots,” VanLandingham said. “We don’t have the inability of ICE agents to conduct their immigration enforcement actions. Graffiti — last time I checked — does not prevent ICE agents from performing their duties.”
Other experts, like Georgetown Law Professor Stephen Vladeck, say the administration is “testing how close it can get to the legal line without crossing it.”
Lessons From California
Portland is not the first state to challenge Trump’s federalization orders. In June, the president deployed 700 U.S. Marines and 4,000 federalized National Guard members to California. A federal appeals court initially allowed the move to proceed.
But as troops took on roles resembling law enforcement, a judge ruled last month that the administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic policing. That case is under appeal, but it provides a roadmap for Oregon’s legal challenge.
“The big question in Portland,” Vladeck explained, “is whether the Guard is simply defending federal property or whether they’re patrolling streets, making arrests, and searching people. That’s where the legal lines have been drawn so far.”
Political and Historical Context
Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. The Founders’ experience with British troops under King George II helped cement restrictions against such practices. Around the world, authoritarian governments have often used military force against civilians to consolidate power — a comparison critics say Portland now risks.
“Even though it’s only 200 Oregon National Guard members, by federalizing them on facts that are not in existence, the president is chipping away at these longstanding understandings of how the military works in our constitutional democracy,” VanLandingham warned. “And to me, that’s very scary.”
Officials Weigh In
Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez has also sided with the state. In his filing, Vasquez, who helped oversee prosecutions from Portland’s 2020 protests, stated that nothing this year has exceeded local police capabilities.
“I have closely monitored the situation at the ICE facility and have not seen any activity that, in my professional opinion, is beyond the capabilities of the Portland Police Bureau,” he wrote.
Federal officials counter that the threat is not limited to Portland. Wamsley pointed to incidents across the country, including a deadly shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas in September. Shell casings recovered at the scene bore anti-ICE messages, which she cited as evidence of a broader threat requiring military presence.
Oregon’s Missed Opportunity
Some Oregon lawmakers anticipated this scenario. Earlier this year, state legislators introduced House Bill 3954, which would have clarified when the National Guard could be deployed for federal service.
The bill proposed limiting deployment if it undermined the Guard’s ability to respond to state emergencies such as wildfires or earthquakes. While it passed the House, it failed in the Senate after Republican opposition.
“There was a reason why we wanted that bill passed,” said Rep. Paul Evans, a Democrat and military veteran. “Had it been law, it would have either prevented what is happening now or strengthened the state’s case in court.”
Rep. Dacia Grayber, another Democrat, said she hopes lawmakers revive the bill in the next session. “We’re seeing that this administration will do anything,” she said. “It might not have stopped it, but it would have been a speed bump.”
What Comes Next
As the case moves forward, Judge Immergut’s ruling on the restraining order will determine whether Trump’s deployment stands in the short term. Whatever the outcome, legal experts agree the broader lawsuit will shape how future administrations can use federalized Guard troops in U.S. cities.
For now, Portland remains caught between dueling realities: a city leaders say is resilient and manageable, and a city federal officials depict as chaotic and unsafe. The decision from the courthouse will decide which version of Portland carries the day — at least legally.
