Judge again bars Trump administration from deploying troops to Portland
[November 03, 2025]
By CLAIRE RUSH and GENE JOHNSON
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred
President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National
Guard to Portland, Oregon until at least Friday, saying she “found no
credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before
the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.
The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.
It's the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in
Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has
moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to
quell protests.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump
appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over
whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
building met the conditions for using the military domestically under
federal law.
In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final
order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial,
including more than 750 exhibits.
Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated
The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is
to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring
or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court
order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being
deployed anyway.
Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and
counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the
immigration facility at the center of the protests.
"Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence
that during the approximately two months before the President’s
federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than
isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no
serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.
Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court
The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for
military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate
lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has
not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so
would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it
needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with
regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up
troops.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment
of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump
had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the
National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump
has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply
untethered to the facts.”
One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals
court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before
an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals
court’s initial order from early October — under which the National
Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.
[to top of second column]
|
People protest outside a United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Ore., Monday, Oct. 20, 2025.
(AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment
During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and
federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response
to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The
demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a
riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the
weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.
The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents
from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland
protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of
rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops
under federal law.
Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing
shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be
fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective
Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that
provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be
sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety
concerns.
R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in
DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a
troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When
cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that
he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised”
to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with
statements about Portland burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to
respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot
on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene
when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have
largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials
testified.
Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also
allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times
been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward
officers working at the building.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to
property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The
regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another
building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence
that they were able to continue their work functions.
Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that
“without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain
instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest ...
that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”
___
Johnson reported from Seattle.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
