Federal Judge Blocks National Guard Deployment to Portland

Sat Nov 08 2025 15:23:58 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a ruling that questioned the legal basis for deploying the National Guard, a federal judge in Oregon has blocked the Trump administration's efforts to mobilize troops in response to the protests at the ICE facility.

A U.S. District Court judge in Oregon has ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to deploy the National Guard to Portland, citing insufficient legal justification. The court held that the administration failed to prove that a rebellion or danger existed, leading to ongoing legal disputes over the use of military resources in domestic situations. This decision arises amid wider resistance from cities targeted for military action.

PORTLAND, Ore. (OnPoint) — A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that President Trump’s administration did not meet the legal conditions necessary to deploy the National Guard to Portland, blocking the move in response to protests outside the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, made the ruling following a detailed examination during a three-day trial. The case centered on whether the protests warranted military intervention under federal law. The administration argued that military troops were required to protect federal personnel and properties during escalating protests.

In her comprehensive 106-page opinion, Judge Immergut concluded that even though the president receives “great deference” in deciding to mobilize the Guard, there was no legal justification for such actions. She stated that the administration had failed to establish the existence of a rebellion or imminent danger that would necessitate military support.

The White House had no immediate comments in response to the ruling. This decision follows ongoing pushback from cities, including Chicago—another location threatened with National Guard deployment—asserting that Trump's actions violate state sovereignty and legal boundaries.

Judge Immergut had previously issued orders that blocked the deployment prior to the trial, also finding that the president had not demonstrated the legal grounds needed for such mobilization. She criticized Trump’s portrayal of Portland as “war-ravaged” as “untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already mandated that the National Guard not be deployed pending further legal actions. The trial aimed to gather information that could influence future appellate rulings concerning the administration's authority.

Witnesses, including local police and federal officials, were scrutinized regarding their responses to the protests at the ICE facility, which intensified in June when local law enforcement labeled one protest a riot. The demonstrations typically drew few participants, notwithstanding Trump’s heated rhetoric.

Federal authorities claimed they had to reshape deployments around the country to manage the situation, referring to the protests as an alleged “rebellion.” However, contrasting testimonies indicated that local law enforcement was adequately managing the protests and that previous actions taken at the ICE facility did not suggest a breakdown of law enforcement capabilities.

Ultimately, the court established that the conditions necessary for military intervention were not met, reinforcing the legal framework intended to govern such deployments within the U.S.