Oregon Judge Halts National Guard Deployment Amid Protest Disputes

Mon Nov 03 2025 14:29:46 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocks the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in response to protests, citing a lack of credible evidence for violence.

In a significant ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut has barred the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, citing insufficient evidence of escalating protest violence. The ruling, which follows a trial involving multiple exhibits and testimonies, reflects ongoing tensions between federal authority and local governance amid protests. The judge's decision underscores concerns about the legal thresholds for military involvement and the preservation of state sovereignty.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A U.S. District Court judge has temporarily prevented the deployment of National Guard troops by the Trump administration to Portland, Oregon, until at least Friday. Judge Karin Immergut stated in her ruling that she found no credible evidence suggesting that protests in Portland had spiraled out of control, even prior to the federal order to mobilize the Guard.

This ruling is part of a broader legal conflict surrounding the deployment of federal forces in response to protests regarding immigration and civil rights, which have occurred in several U.S. cities, including Chicago. The city and the state of Oregon filed suit in September to block the deployment, seeking to curtail what they view as infringements on local authority.

Immergut's decision came after a detailed three-day trial where both sides presented their cases regarding the circumstances warranting military involvement under federal law. The judge stated that despite the Trump administration's claims of unrest, most violence appeared to be limited to clashes between protesters and counter-protesters, with no significant damage reported to federal property.

“There is no credible evidence that during the two months leading up to the President’s deployment order, protests exceeded low-level violence or resulted in grave injuries to federal employees,” she noted in her 16-page filing.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has defended the mobilization as necessary for ensuring the safety of federal personnel and property. Legal experts argue that a previously established higher court order complicates the administration's efforts to deploy troops without meeting a stringent legal threshold.

This ruling stands in the wake of the administration's expansive military response to protests, sparking concerns about the implications for state sovereignty and the appropriate scope of federal power. Local officials testified that Portland's police were capable of managing protests without military assistance, challenging the administration's characterization of Portland as a chaotic environment.

Immergut's order also follows her previous rulings which indicated that the Trump administration had not sufficiently justified the legal basis for deploying National Guard troops. The case illustrates the ongoing legal tussle over the use of military personnel in civil situations, with significant implications for governance and civil rights across the nation.

Oregon’s Senior Assistant Attorney General emphasized that despite some incidents of unrest, they do not amount to a rebellion or depict an inability to enforce the law, suggesting that city officials have managed the situation effectively without federal assistance.