Federal Court in Oregon Halts National Guard Deployment Approved by Trump

A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland at least until Friday, saying she found “no credible evidence” that protests in the city had spiraled out of control before the president ordered federal command of the troops earlier this fall.

The city and state authorities filed the lawsuit seeking to block the deployment back in September. It is the latest chapter in a series of legal battles unfolding for weeks in Portland, Chicago, and other U.S. cities where the Trump administration has sought to use the National Guard to quell demonstrations.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, came after a three-day hearing that examined whether protests outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions allowing the use of military forces on domestic soil. In a 16-page filing submitted late Sunday, Immergut explained that she would issue a final decision on Friday due to the large volume of evidence—more than 750 exhibits.

According to the Trump administration, the purpose of involving the Guard is to protect federal employees and property in areas where protests are occurring or could occur. However, legal experts note that an appellate court order already in place would have prohibited such troop deployments regardless.

Immergut noted that most of the violence occurred between protesters and counter-protesters, and that there was no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration agency’s building. “Based on the testimony presented, the court finds no credible evidence that, in the two months preceding the president’s order placing forces under federal command, the protests had spiraled out of control or involved anything beyond isolated and sporadic outbreaks of violence that did not result in serious injuries among federal employees,” the judge wrote.

The case has drawn wide attention, as several Democratic-led cities, including Chicago, have filed lawsuits challenging the president’s authority to deploy troops without sufficient grounds. They argue that such actions violate state sovereignty. The Trump administration, meanwhile, insists that it turns to the military only because ordinary law enforcement has failed to maintain order—one of the conditions stipulated by law for military involvement.

Immergut had already twice, in early October, suspended the deployment of the Guard, stating that the president had not met the legal criteria for mobilization. Her assessment of Portland—described by Trump as “a war zone” and “engulfed in flames”—was characterized by the court as “unrelated to the facts.”

One of her October orders was later suspended by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on Tuesday the court reversed its own decision and ordered the case to be reheard by an expanded panel of eleven judges. Until the rehearing takes place, the previous arrangement remains in effect—the Guard remains under federal command but is not being deployed.

During the Portland proceedings, witnesses including local police officers and federal officials were questioned about law enforcement actions during nighttime protests outside the ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when police declared one rally a riot. In the weeks leading up to the Guard’s proposed deployment, only a few dozen people were attending the protests.

The Trump administration stated that it had been forced to bring in federal agents from other regions, describing the situation as a “rebellion” or a “threat of insurrection”—another condition under federal law that can justify military involvement.

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for additional personnel that have yet to be met. Among them was an officer from the Federal Protective Service, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for securing federal buildings.

For security reasons, the court allowed him to testify under the initials R.C.

R.C., who said he was familiar with the ICE building’s security system, testified that the deployment of troops could have eased the burden on staff. However, under cross-examination he admitted that he had not requested military support himself and was unaware of the president’s decision. He added that he was “surprised” by the news of the deployment and disagreed with claims that Portland was “burning to the ground.”

Representatives of Portland and the state of Oregon argued that local police were capable of maintaining order. After declaring a riot on June 14, the department changed tactics, instructing officers to intervene only in cases of crimes against people or property. According to police testimony, the number of demonstrators dropped sharply after late June.