Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Portland

A federal judge has issued a permanent ruling against the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, stating that former President Donald Trump exceeded his authority. The decision, delivered on October 25, 2025, comes after a three-day trial that examined the legal basis for the President’s actions during significant protests related to immigration policies.

Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court stated that the deployment was not warranted under the prevailing conditions. She noted that the actions were contested by Oregon’s governor and were not requested by federal officials responsible for protecting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland. According to Judge Immergut, the evidence demonstrated that the President’s decision to federalize the National Guard was unfounded.

During the trial, the Trump administration argued that ongoing immigration-related protests constituted a state of rebellion, justifying the federal takeover of the National Guard. However, Judge Immergut rejected this claim, stating, “The President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.” She emphasized that the conditions in Portland had persisted for months without justifying such a drastic federal intervention.

The ruling also reflects broader implications for executive authority and federalism. Judge Immergut acknowledged the potential for appeals, indicating that the legal questions surrounding the deployment of military forces in domestic contexts would likely be evaluated by a higher court. “The precise standard to demarcate the line past which conditions would satisfy the statutory standard to deploy the military in the streets of American cities is ultimately a question for a higher court to decide,” she wrote.

The ruling comes at a time when Trump had expressed intentions to send National Guard troops to other Democratic-run cities, including Chicago, which faced similar opposition from local authorities. The legal battle over the National Guard’s deployment underscores ongoing tensions between federal and state powers, particularly in the context of civil protests.

Oregon officials have hailed the ruling as a significant victory for state authority and civil liberties. The decision reinforces the principle that federal intervention must meet specific legal standards and highlights the judiciary’s role in assessing executive actions.

As the legal landscape surrounding the deployment of federal troops continues to evolve, the implications of this ruling may resonate beyond Portland, influencing future actions by federal leaders in similar situations.