President Donald Trump’s latest clash with Oregon began when he announced plans to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard troops for deployment to Portland — a move he justified by calling the city “war-ravaged” and overrun by “domestic terrorists.”
The decision, unveiled last weekend on Trump’s social media platform TruthSocial, was met with immediate resistance from Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who swiftly filed a lawsuit arguing the order was both unconstitutional and politically motivated. Within hours, Oregon and the city of Portland were in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order to block the deployment.
A State Prepared for a Constitutional Fight
For Kotek and other state leaders, the confrontation didn’t come as a surprise. Oregon had been anticipating such a move after weeks of Trump’s increasingly aggressive statements about “restoring order” in cities led by Democrats.
Also Read
When the president announced his intention to deploy troops, Kotek responded within minutes, calling the order “an outrageous overreach of federal power.”
“The Oregon National Guard serves Oregonians — not a president’s political agenda,” she said. “We will not stand by while our troops are used as props in a national campaign.”
Her administration had already been preparing for potential federal intervention. According to officials, state lawyers had drafted emergency legal arguments in advance, anticipating Trump might attempt to invoke Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows presidents to federalize National Guard forces during acts of rebellion.
Why the Governor Opposed the Deployment
The Trump administration claimed the deployment was necessary to protect the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility in Portland, where small protests have taken place for months. Federal attorneys described the demonstrations as “dangerous and escalating,” but local officials disputed that account.
Portland police logs show most protests at the ICE site have been small and largely peaceful, with no reports of large-scale violence or property damage.
“This is not an emergency,” Kotek said. “This is an exaggeration designed to justify an unlawful power grab.”
A Clash Over State Sovereignty
Oregon’s lawsuit argues that Trump’s action violates both the Tenth Amendment, which reserves policing powers to the states, and the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
Attorney General Rayfield said the president’s move represents “a direct challenge to state sovereignty.”
“This is about who controls Oregon’s soldiers,” Rayfield said. “The Constitution is clear — the federal government cannot commandeer state forces for political purposes.”
Awaiting a Court Decision
The case now sits before U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who said she will issue a ruling Saturday. If she grants the temporary restraining order, the deployment will be halted while the broader case continues.
For Oregon, the legal battle is about more than one deployment — it’s about setting a precedent for state control.
“As governor, my duty is to protect the people of Oregon,” Kotek said. “That includes protecting them from unlawful orders — even from the president of the United States.”
