PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland, delivering a significant legal rebuke to the White House’s assertive stance on federal intervention. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, October 4, 2025, siding with the state of Oregon and the City of Portland in their lawsuit challenging the federalization of the National Guard. The ruling emphasized concerns over executive overreach and the constitutional balance of powers, stating the administration’s justification for the deployment was “untethered to the facts.”
Federal Judge Halts Deployment Amid Lack of Justification
In her ruling, Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, found that the conditions cited by the Trump administration did not meet the legal threshold for federalizing the state’s National Guard. The deployment order, signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, aimed to place 200 Oregon National Guard members under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property amidst protests at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. However, Immergut concluded that the administration failed to demonstrate the necessity required by statute, stating, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts”. The temporary restraining order is in effect until October 18, 2025, with a hearing scheduled for October 17 to discuss potential extensions. The Trump administration quickly filed a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following the ruling.
Oregon’s Legal Challenge and Contrasting Narratives
The lawsuit, brought forth by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and joined by the City of Portland, argued that President Trump lacked the statutory and constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard. State officials, including Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson, strongly contested the administration’s depiction of Portland as “war-ravaged”. They presented evidence indicating that recent protests at the ICE facility were small, typically involving only a couple dozen individuals, and had been largely peaceful for months, with minimal arrests. Oregon’s legal team argued that the administration’s claims of rebellion or an inability for regular forces to execute federal laws did not align with the actual situation on the ground, which they characterized as peaceful and manageable by local law enforcement.
Administration’s Rationale and Legal Arguments
The Trump administration defended the deployment by citing threats to federal personnel and property, particularly at the ICE facility. They invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under specific circumstances, such as invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws cannot be executed by regular forces. Department of Justice attorneys argued that the situation warranted federal intervention due to ongoing threats and instances of masked individuals engaging in confrontations, blocking vehicles, and blinding drivers. The administration also referenced events in other cities, including Los Angeles, and Trump’s social media posts describing Portland as “war-ravaged” and its ICE facilities as “under siege” by “domestic terrorists”. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court”.
Judicial Scrutiny and Constitutional Concerns
Judge Immergut’s decision heavily scrutinized the factual basis for the federalization order. She noted that the protests had been “small and uneventful” in the weeks leading up to the deployment announcement, directly contradicting the administration’s claims of widespread unrest. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional law and resisting government overreach, particularly concerning military intrusion into civil affairs. “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law”. The ruling also raised concerns about state sovereignty, with the judge indicating that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s ability to control its own National Guard and uphold its Tenth Amendment rights.
Broader Implications and Ongoing News
The judge’s temporary block is a significant development in the ongoing legal battles over federal intervention in cities across the United States. Oregon’s lawsuit argued that the federalization usurped state authority and that the National Guard troops, if deployed federally, would be unavailable for state emergencies, potentially costing millions in taxpayer dollars. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon praised the ruling, calling it “consistent with the law and the facts on the ground in Portland”. This news underscores the escalating tensions between federal and state governments over the use of federal forces in domestic situations, a topic that continues to be a major focus in national news and public discussion. The swift appeal filed by the Trump administration indicates that this legal dispute is far from over, with future hearings and potential appellate decisions shaping the understanding of presidential authority and state sovereignty. This unfolding news from Oregon highlights the critical role of the judiciary in arbitrating disputes concerning the balance of powers within the United States.
