Oregon’s top state and city officials are mobilizing a robust defense, including potential court challenges and legislative measures, in anticipation of President Donald Trump’s stated intention to deploy the National Guard to Portland. The President’s comments, which painted the city as a scene of chaos and destruction, appear to stem from a misleading television report that conflated current, smaller demonstrations with the widespread protests of 2020. This news has galvanized Oregon leaders, who are prepared to push back against what they view as federal overreach.
President Trump recently suggested that Portland could be the next city to see National Guard troops deployed, describing the city as “unbelievable” and “like living in hell.” He characterized protesters as “paid agitators” and “terrorists.” These remarks were reportedly prompted by a Fox News segment that, according to reports, mixed recent footage of small demonstrations near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility with viral videos from the 2020 George Floyd-era protests, creating a false impression of ongoing widespread unrest. This characterization has been widely disputed by local officials.
Oregon’s United Front Against Federal Intervention
Oregon’s leadership has presented a unified front in condemning Trump’s rhetoric and potential actions. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has emphatically stated that the city does not require federal intervention, asserting that local police have effectively managed protests while safeguarding freedom of expression and addressing any instances of violence or property damage. A spokesperson for the Portland Police Bureau noted that activity around the city’s ICE building has notably diminished.
Governor Kate Brown has a history of resisting federalization of the National Guard and has previously expressed her opposition to Trump’s approach to managing protests. She has previously stated she would refuse requests to deploy Oregon’s National Guard for federal border duties, emphasizing her commitment to the state’s autonomy.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has signaled a readiness to engage in legal battles, stating his office has been preparing for such scenarios since Trump took office. Rayfield pointed to a federal judge’s recent ruling that found Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles illegal, setting a precedent for challenging federal overreach. “The president may have a lot of power, but he has to stay in his lane – and if he doesn’t, we’ll hold him accountable,” Rayfield declared.
Legislative Safeguards Against Federal Overreach
In anticipation of such federal actions, Oregon lawmakers have already taken steps to assert state control over its National Guard. In June 2025, the Oregon House of Representatives passed House Bill 3954, a measure designed to limit the circumstances under which the Oregon National Guard can be deployed for federal service. The bill prohibits the Oregon National Guard from engaging in federal law enforcement or immigration enforcement duties, except for specific, indirect support or surveillance roles tied to border security operations. Crucially, it also prevents a call to active federal service if it would compromise the Guard’s ability to respond to statewide emergencies, such as wildfires or earthquakes, which are significant concerns for the state. This legislative action reflects a broader effort by Oregon to ensure its resources remain focused on state needs and to prevent federal misuse of its military assets.
Background of Federal Presence and Legal Challenges
The tensions between Portland and the federal government are not new. During the 2020 protests that followed the murder of George Floyd, federal law enforcement officers were deployed to Portland, drawing widespread criticism from local officials and residents. Mayor Wheeler and Governor Brown at the time condemned the presence of these federal agents, with Wheeler describing their actions as an “abuse of federal law enforcement” and “political theater.” The use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement has also faced increasing legal scrutiny nationwide. A federal judge ruled in September 2025 that the Trump administration unlawfully deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles, violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement functions. Similar legal challenges have arisen in Washington, D.C.
Oregon’s Resolve
As President Trump continues to explore options for federal troop deployments, Oregon’s leaders are demonstrating a clear commitment to protecting their state’s autonomy and legal principles. Their preparations involve both immediate legal strategies and the reinforcement of legislative measures, underscoring a determined stance against what they perceive as an unwarranted federal intrusion. The news out of Oregon indicates a preparedness to defend state rights in the face of federal directives. The situation highlights a recurring conflict over the boundaries of federal power and the rights of states to manage their internal affairs, particularly in response to civil unrest. Oregon news outlets have closely followed these developments, reflecting the significant local and state-wide concern.
