In a move that has sparked intense debate and legal battles, a federal judge has temporarily halted President Trump's plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, marking a significant setback for the administration's efforts to use military forces in cities against the wishes of local leaders. But here's where it gets controversial: this ruling comes just a day after the same judge blocked Trump from using Oregon's own National Guard, prompting the administration to swiftly pivot by calling in troops from California and Texas. And this is the part most people miss: the judge, appointed by Trump himself, questioned the legality and necessity of the move, stating there was no evidence that protests warranted such a response.
The drama unfolded on October 5, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a ruling that prevents the Trump administration from sending any National Guard troops to Portland until at least October 19. This decision came after California and Oregon filed lawsuits to block the deployment, arguing it violated federal laws and state sovereignty. During a Sunday night hearing, Immergut pressed Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton, asking, 'How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not directly contradict my earlier decision?' She further challenged, 'Is there any legal authority for what you are doing?' Hamilton defended the move, claiming the California National Guard was federalized in June for a mission to protect federal personnel and property nationwide. However, Oregon's attorney Scott Kennedy called this a 'game of rhetorical whack-a-mole,' accusing the administration of circumventing the judge's intent.
Trump's reaction was swift and critical, though he mistakenly referred to Judge Immergut as male, stating, 'That judge ought to be ashamed of himself.' Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom labeled the administration's actions as 'a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.' The Pentagon had announced the deployment of 200 California National Guard troops to Portland and 400 Texas troops to various locations, including Chicago, to support federal law enforcement and protect property. This follows a pattern of Trump's expanding use of the military in his second term, including deployments along the U.S.-Mexico border and controversial orders to target suspected drug traffickers off Venezuela.
The legal battle highlights a deeper tension between federal authority and state rights, with Oregon arguing Trump exaggerated the threat of protests to justify seizing control of state units. Immergut warned that accepting Trump's arguments could allow him to 'send military troops virtually anywhere at any time,' blurring the line between civil and military power. The Trump administration has appealed, claiming the judge overstepped by questioning the Commander in Chief's military judgments.
But here’s the bigger question: Is this a necessary measure to restore order, or an overreach of federal power? As protests continue in Portland and other cities, the debate over the role of the military in domestic affairs is more heated than ever. What do you think? Is Trump justified in deploying troops, or is this a dangerous precedent? Let us know in the comments below.
