In a fresh clash between the federal government and state authorities, a U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying National Guard troops from Texas and California to Portland, Oregon. The decision, issued late Sunday, adds a new layer to an already heated debate over presidential power, law enforcement, and the boundaries of state sovereignty.

The ruling follows an earlier rejection by the same court of Trump’s attempt to use Oregon’s own National Guard to control protests in Portland. It marks another significant legal obstacle for the administration as it continues its push to send military resources into Democratic-led cities in the name of combating what Trump has repeatedly called “out-of-control crime.”

Story Highlights – Read Box

• Federal Judge Karin Immergut halts deployment of National Guard troops to Portland.
• States involved: Oregon, California, and Texas.
• Court cites lack of evidence for the necessity of troop deployment.
• White House maintains Trump’s legal authority under federal law.
• Illinois joins battle, filing a similar suit against planned deployment to Chicago.
• Temporary restraining order effective until October 19, with appeal expected.

Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump himself, issued the order shortly after the Pentagon confirmed that 200 California National Guard members had been reassigned to Portland to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal personnel. The states of Oregon and California jointly sought an emergency block against what they described as an “unauthorized federal intrusion.”

In her ruling, Judge Immergut emphasized that there was no compelling evidence proving that ongoing protests in Portland warranted the presence of federalized National Guard troops. During an emergency hearing, she directly challenged federal attorneys, questioning whether the administration’s move was an attempt to circumvent her prior decision that denied Trump the authority to deploy Oregon’s own National Guard without state consent.

“The use of military power in a domestic setting, absent consent, risks undermining the sovereignty of states,” Immergut warned. She added that such actions could “further inflame tensions rather than restore order.”

White House and Trump Camp Respond

The reaction from the Trump administration was swift and sharp. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, took to X (formerly Twitter), calling the ruling “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order in U.S. history.”

Miller later told reporters that Trump was reviewing “a very broad range of authorities” to move ahead with his National Guard deployment despite the restraining order. “We’re not disclosing our next steps,” he said, “as that would only prepare opponents for their next court filings.”

At a separate press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on the administration’s position, describing the ruling as “untethered in reality and in the law.”

“President Trump acted within his full legal authority,” Leavitt stated. “We are very confident we will prevail on the merits of the law.”

The temporary restraining order, for now, remains in effect until October 19, during which the Trump administration is expected to file an immediate appeal.

States Push Back: Chicago Joins the Fight

While Portland remains the focal point of the controversy, Illinois has now joined the legal pushback. On Monday, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a lawsuit seeking to block the administration’s planned deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

“The American people, no matter where they live, should not live under the threat of occupation by their own military,” Raoul said in a statement. “That is not the democracy our Constitution promises.”

Echoing that sentiment, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker labeled the proposed deployment “Trump’s invasion,” warning that it would create unrest rather than peace. “There is no justification for deploying troops into a state without the cooperation of its leaders,” he said.

Pritzker urged Texas Governor Greg Abbott to withdraw support for the decision. But Abbott refused, saying he “fully authorized” the participation of the Texas National Guard to “protect federal employees.”

“You can either enforce protection for federal staff,” Abbott posted on X, “or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it.”

Trump Floats Insurrection Act as Tensions Escalate

Amid intensifying opposition, Trump hinted at invoking the Insurrection Act—a rarely used federal law that allows the president to deploy the military domestically in extreme situations. Speaking from the Oval Office, he remarked, “We have the Insurrection Act for a reason. If people are being killed and courts or governors are holding us up, sure, I would do that.”

The statement added new uncertainty to an already tense standoff, drawing both political criticism and constitutional concern.

Background: Ongoing Protests and Legal Limits

Both Portland and Chicago have seen repeated demonstrations over immigration enforcement policies, with some turning violent. Over the weekend, immigration officials in Chicago said they opened fire on an armed woman after she allegedly rammed her car into law enforcement vehicles.

The National Guard, which functions as the reserve force of the U.S. Army and Air Force, is usually called up by state governors for disaster response or federal missions abroad. Its use in domestic law enforcement is tightly restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other statutes that limit the federal government’s ability to use military force inside the United States.

In September, a California federal judge ruled that Trump’s earlier deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was unlawful, citing violations of federal law that restrict domestic military engagement. That decision is currently under appeal.

The escalating legal battle underscores a broader national debate over federal authority versus state sovereignty—and the limits of presidential power in deploying military forces on U.S. soil. As the Trump administration doubles down on its strategy to project federal control in cities like Portland and Chicago, the courts now stand as the primary arena determining how far that power truly extends.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.