A sweeping legal confrontation has erupted between the Trump administration and several Democratic-led states over President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and other cities under the pretext of quelling anti-ICE protests. The move has drawn sharp rebukes from state officials and civil rights advocates, who warn that the president’s escalating use of military power inside the United States represents an alarming erosion of constitutional limits.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut—appointed to the federal bench by Trump during his first term—issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of 200 National Guard troops to Portland. In her ruling, she wrote that the president’s claims about violent protests at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility were “untethered to facts,” adding that the state had provided “substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days—or even weeks—leading up to the president’s directive.”
Immergut emphasized that under federal law, the president may deploy troops only “in times of foreign invasion, a rebellion, or when local authorities are unable to maintain order.” The demonstrations, she concluded, did not meet those conditions. “The protests have been such a minor issue that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility,” she said.
In a passage that underscored her constitutional concern, Immergut wrote, “The U.S. has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs… This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.”
The decision immediately provoked outrage from inside the White House. Trump adviser and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller accused Immergut of “legal insurrection,” claiming that she was attempting to assume the role of “commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces” by siding with Oregon officials. He alleged that state authorities were aiding “an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers” by refusing to assist ICE agents.
Miller later escalated his remarks, telling Newsmax that “there is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in this country” that is “well organized and funded” and “shielded by far-left Democrat judges.” He added, “The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose administration joined Oregon’s challenge to the order, condemned Miller’s statements. “It’s authoritarian propaganda, plain and simple. Stephen Miller should be fired,” he said.
Immergut’s temporary order, initially limited to troops drawn from California, was followed by a second, broader ruling after the White House sought to sidestep the court’s decision by mobilizing 400 Texas National Guard troops. With the support of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the administration planned to send those soldiers to Oregon and potentially to Illinois.
“It seems to me that based on the conduct of the defendants and the now seeking National Guard from Texas to go to Oregon again, I see those as direct contravention of the order […] issued yesterday,” Immergut said.
According to filings submitted before the emergency hearing, “approximately 100 California National Guard troops landed in Portland after midnight Sunday and around 100 more arrived by early evening,” wrote Alan Gronewold, commander of Oregon’s National Guard. The state also included in its filing a memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing “up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois and possibly elsewhere.”
Newsom applauded the expanded ruling, describing Trump’s efforts as “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power by the President of the United States.” He warned, “America is on the brink of martial law. Do not be silent.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker issued an equally dire warning. “We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” he said. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.” He added, “There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation.”
Civil liberties advocates echoed those concerns. Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said, “As the founders of this country made abundantly clear, turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties.” She continued, “When President Trump is trying his best to imperil our First Amendment rights and scare those protesting his cruel policies into silence, it’s encouraging to see this court ruling based on adherence to law and facts, not the President’s fantasies of beautiful, vibrant American cities as hellscapes.”
Grassroots and advocacy groups also warned of a dangerous precedent. The Not Above the Law coalition said in a joint statement that the administration’s actions “isn’t about public safety, it’s about testing how far a president can override elected state leaders and deploy forces against American communities.” The coalition’s co-chairs added, “Our armed forces exist to defend the nation and protect our freedoms – not to patrol our own streets. And our nation’s brave servicemembers should not be used as the political pawns of a would-be authoritarian.”
They urged congressional action, saying, “Whether you’re a red or a blue state, every American should be alarmed when federal troops are deployed over the objections of local authorities. Americans in every community must speak out now. Stopping this abuse of power is essential to protecting our freedoms and our democracy.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who led the legal challenge, said the court orders were necessary to halt the president’s overreach. He explained the rulings in a Sunday night video statement following the emergency hearing.
Local and federal records cited in the court documents undermined the administration’s portrayal of Portland as a “war-ravaged” city. Since early June, Portland Police had reported 27 arrests at protests near the ICE facility, and federal officers had arrested at least two dozen more. Immergut found that these figures did not suggest the breakdown of order required to justify a military response.
Despite the rulings, the Trump administration immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously allowed the president to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles in a separate case after a district judge attempted to halt the deployment. The Justice Department indicated that it would pursue the same strategy to reverse Immergut’s injunctions.
Parallel to the legal maneuvers, the administration signaled plans to invoke National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, a directive mandating “a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence.” Miller said on Saturday that federal agents in Portland would apply NSPM-7 “whenever federal agents make an arrest at a protest,” effectively linking political dissent to counterterrorism operations.
Investigative reporter Jim Stewartson said Miller’s remarks “collapsed Democrats, ‘far-left Democrat judges’, and ‘antifa’ into a single domestic terror threat as a pretext for mass arrests.” The president’s prior executive order purporting to designate “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization—despite no such legal mechanism existing—had already been condemned by civil rights experts.
As tension mounted, lawmakers and activists described the court’s intervention as a temporary but vital defense of civilian governance. Rep. Maxine Dexter of Oregon said, “The president is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people must remain greater than the people in power. We need to show up in peaceful protest across this nation. Stay Loud!”
Immergut’s order is set to expire in two weeks, but she is expected to rule on the state’s request for a permanent injunction barring any future deployments. The Justice Department’s appeal will likely proceed in parallel. For now, the court’s message remains clear: constitutional limits, not political decrees, define the use of military power on U.S. soil.
COMMENTS