Article image

The President's Unlawful Order

Saturday, 08 November 2025 02:37

Summary

In November 2025, a federal judge delivered a significant rebuke to the executive branch, ruling that the Trump administration's attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, was unlawful. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, concluded a legal battle that began in the turbulent summer of 2020. At that time, Portland was the epicentre of sustained protests following the murder of George Floyd. The Trump administration responded by dispatching a multi-agency federal law enforcement contingent under the banner of 'Operation Diligent Valor', ostensibly to protect federal property. This intervention, marked by aggressive tactics and the use of unmarked vehicles, escalated tensions with local and state officials. The administration's subsequent move to federalise and deploy the National Guard, against the express wishes of Oregon's governor, prompted a lawsuit by the state and the city of Portland. Judge Immergut's final order found that the administration had failed to meet the stringent legal requirements for such a deployment, specifically by not proving that a 'rebellion' was underway or that civilian law enforcement was incapable of managing the situation. The ruling represents a critical examination of the limits of presidential power and the constitutional balance between federal authority and state sovereignty.

A Decisive Judgment

A federal judge in Oregon issued a permanent ban on the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland on Friday, 7 November 2025, ruling that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, herself an appointee of President Trump, was a definitive legal setback for the administration's use of military forces in American cities. In a detailed 106-page opinion, Judge Immergut found that the administration failed to meet the strict legal requirements for deploying the National Guard for domestic law enforcement. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the state of Oregon and the city of Portland in September 2025 to block the deployment. The core of the government's justification was that protests, particularly those outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, constituted a 'rebellion' against the federal government, thereby permitting presidential intervention. After an expedited three-day trial, Judge Immergut concluded that the administration's claims were unfounded and that the evidence did not support the existence of a rebellion. The ruling stated that the president did not have a legal basis for the action because he had not established that he was unable to enforce federal law with regular forces. The judge wrote that the deployments, which were objected to by Oregon's governor and not requested by federal officials responsible for the ICE building's security, exceeded the president's authority. This decision effectively transformed a temporary restraining order into a permanent injunction, though it included a brief stay to maintain the status quo for already federalised troops, preventing their immediate deployment.

The Summer of Discontent

The legal confrontation was born from the social and political turmoil that gripped Portland in the summer of 2020. Following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on 25 May 2020, Portland became a focal point for sustained protests against police brutality and systemic racism. For months, demonstrators gathered nightly, particularly around the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse and other federal buildings. While many demonstrations were peaceful, some involved confrontations with law enforcement and acts of vandalism, including graffiti and fires set at the federal courthouse. President Trump portrayed the city as being 'out of control' and populated by 'anarchists'. He publicly criticised state and local Democratic leaders for, in his view, failing to quell the unrest. This set the stage for a direct federal intervention, framed by the administration as a necessary measure to restore law and order and protect federal property. In late June 2020, the president issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect federal monuments and properties from what he termed 'anarchists and left-wing extremists'.

Operation Diligent Valor

Under the authority of the executive order, the DHS launched 'Operation Diligent Valor'. This operation saw the deployment of hundreds of federal law enforcement agents from various agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Federal Protective Service (FPS). These agents, often clad in military-style camouflage uniforms without clear identifying insignia, became a highly visible and controversial presence on the city's streets. The tactics employed by these federal units drew widespread condemnation. Reports and videos emerged showing agents using unmarked rental minivans to detain protesters, often without providing an explanation for the arrest. The use of tear gas and less-lethal munitions against demonstrators became frequent, further escalating tensions. The federal presence appeared to swell the ranks of the protesters rather than deter them. Oregon's governor, Kate Brown, accused the acting DHS Secretary, Chad Wolf, of being on a 'mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes'. Local officials, including Portland's mayor, demanded the withdrawal of the federal forces. In response, the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit against the federal agencies, alleging they were engaging in unlawful law enforcement and violating the civil rights of protesters by detaining them without probable cause. A subsequent report from the DHS's own Inspector General in April 2021 found that the deployed agents were unprepared, lacked proper training and equipment, and operated without a comprehensive strategy.

The Line Between Policing and Military Action

The administration's next step was to federalise and deploy the National Guard, a move that brought the conflict over federal authority to a head. The legal framework governing the domestic use of military forces is complex and restrictive. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorised by the Constitution or an act of Congress. While the National Guard typically operates under the command of state governors, the president has the authority under specific statutes, such as the Insurrection Act, to federalise these troops for domestic use in cases of rebellion or when state authorities are unable to enforce federal law. The Trump administration argued that the conditions in Portland met this high threshold. In late September 2025, President Trump announced on social media his intention to send troops to the 'War ravaged' city. This prompted the immediate legal challenge from Oregon and Portland, who argued the president was exaggerating the scale of the protests to justify an illegal military deployment. The state of California later joined the lawsuit after the administration federalised California National Guard troops with the apparent intent of sending them to Portland, a move that circumvented an initial court order blocking the use of Oregon's own Guard members.

The Court's Rebuke

In her final ruling, Judge Immergut systematically dismantled the administration's legal and factual arguments. The trial included testimony from federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, which revealed differing perceptions of the threat posed by the protests. The judge found the president's claims that Portland resembled a war zone to be 'simply untethered to the facts'. She concluded that the protests, while disruptive, did not rise to the level of a rebellion or insurrection as defined by federal law. The ruling also emphasised the importance of state sovereignty, as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Immergut wrote that the president's 'unlawful federalization of the National Guard violates the Tenth Amendment, which 'reserves to the States' any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.' The decision affirmed that the deployment was undertaken against the wishes of Oregon's elected leaders and was not requested by the federal law enforcement agencies on the ground tasked with protecting the ICE facility. Attorneys for the Department of Justice had argued that the president's judgment in such matters was not subject to judicial review, a position the court implicitly rejected by issuing its detailed ruling.

Conclusion

The court's permanent injunction against the deployment of the National Guard in Portland marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of executive power in the United States. The ruling serves as a judicial check on the president's authority to use military force for domestic law enforcement, reinforcing the high legal standards that must be met before such an extraordinary step can be taken. It underscores the constitutional principle that state governments retain primary authority over local policing and public order. The events in Portland in 2020 and the subsequent legal battle highlighted the deep divisions within the country and the potential for conflict when federal and state authorities are at odds. The decision by Judge Immergut does not resolve the underlying political tensions, but it does clarify the legal boundaries that constrain the federal government's response to civil unrest. It establishes a legal precedent that will likely be cited in future disputes over the deployment of federal forces in American cities, reaffirming that claims of emergency or rebellion must be grounded in fact, not political rhetoric.

References

  1. Current time information in Portland, OR, US

    Used to establish the current date for the article's context, though not directly cited.

  2. Current time information in Deschutes County, US

    Used for location and time context, not directly cited in the article.

  3. Federal agents sent to Portland in 2020 were 'unprepared' to quell unrest, watchdog finds

    Provides details from the DHS Inspector General's report on Operation Diligent Valor, including the lack of training, equipment, and strategy for the deployed federal agents.

  4. National Guard Fact Sheet - Public Rights Project

    Explains the legal framework for National Guard deployment, including the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act, and the different statuses (Title 10, Title 32).

  5. Operation Diligent Valor: Trump showcased federal power in Portland, making a culture war campaign pitch - The Washington Post

    Details the creation of Operation Diligent Valor, the president's executive order, the agencies involved, and the controversial use of unmarked rental vehicles.

  6. Trump's deployment of federal agents in Portland is exactly how not to police protests

    Describes the tactics of federal agents in Portland, the escalation of violence, and the administration's justification for using overwhelming force.

  7. Trump threatens to deploy more federal agents to protests despite reports of violence

    Provides context on the Portland protests following George Floyd's death and the opposition to the federal deployment from local and state officials.

  8. Trump says federal officers in Portland have done a 'great job,' and he is considering deploying them in other cities - CBS News

    Reports on President Trump's characterization of the Portland protesters as 'anarchists' and the state of Oregon's lawsuit against federal agencies.

  9. Was Trump's Deployment of Federal Officers to Portland, Oregon and other Cities during the Summer of 2020 Legal and Constitutional? - Digital USD

    Provides analysis of the legal basis for the deployment and reports on the use of unmarked vehicles to detain protesters.

  10. Standing Up for Portland: Legal Action

    Confirms that Oregon and Portland filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the deployment of federal troops.

  11. Chad Wolf: who is the Trump official leading the crackdown in Portland? - The Guardian

    Identifies Chad Wolf as the acting DHS Secretary and quotes Oregon Governor Kate Brown's criticism of his motives.

  12. Operation Diligent Valor | Office of Inspector General - OIG.DHS.gov

    Corroborates the findings of the DHS Inspector General's report that the department was unprepared for the deployment in Portland.

  13. Federal judge issues permanent ban on deployment of national guard troops in Portland – live - The Guardian

    Reports on Judge Immergut's permanent ban, noting she was a Trump appointee and that her ruling found the president's claims 'untethered to the facts'.

  14. Federal judge finds Trump Guard deployment to Portland illegal | Oregon Capital Insider

    Provides key details of Judge Immergut's ruling, including the 100-page decision, the finding that the 'rebellion' justification was unfounded, and the fact that the deployment was against the wishes of state leaders.

  15. Trump's order to send National Guard troops to Portland, Ore., was illegal, U.S. judge rules

    Confirms the date of the ruling and its core finding that the order to deploy National Guard troops was unlawful.

  16. Federal judge prohibits Trump from deploying National Guard to Portland - OPB

    Details the lawsuit brought by Portland, Oregon, and California, the president's social media announcement, and the Justice Department's argument in court.

  17. Trump-Appointed Judge Rules His Portland Military Takeover Was Unconstitutional

    Directly quotes Judge Immergut's finding that the federalization of the National Guard violated the Tenth Amendment.

  18. Judge rules Trump administration failed to meet legal requirements for deploying troops to Portland - The Washington Post

    Reports on the 106-page opinion and the judge's finding that the president did not have a legal basis for the deployment because a rebellion was not established.

  19. Judge blocks National Guard in Oregon | Courthouse News Service

    Provides a direct quote from the ruling on the Tenth Amendment violation and confirms the permanent block on deploying National Guard members in Oregon.

  20. Trump's plan to deploy troops to Portland ruled unlawful by US judge | World News

    Confirms the ruling and notes it is the first time a federal judge has ruled directly on the president's invocation of federal law to take control of state troops.

  21. What's the president's legal basis for sending National Guard troops to DC streets?

    Provides background on the legal authorities the Trump administration cited for deployments in other cities, such as Title 10 of the U.S. code.

  22. Chad Wolf defends Trump administration's Portland protest response - The Washington Post

    Documents Acting Secretary Chad Wolf's defense of the DHS deployment in Portland before a Senate committee.

  23. Meet the Guy Who Planned Trump's Crackdown in Portland - YouTube

    Provides background on Chad Wolf's role as the acting secretary of Homeland Security in charge of the federal response in Portland.

  24. Chad Wolf launched a small war in Portland. He's just getting started. - The Washington Post

    Offers a critical perspective on Chad Wolf's leadership and the appearance of the federal agents deployed in Portland.

  25. National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

    Provides general legal background on the powers of Congress and the President to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

  26. DHS Head Hits Back at Criticism of Federal Officers Deployed to Portland | National Review

    Shows the administration's perspective, with Chad Wolf defending the deployment against criticism.

  27. What's the president's legal basis for sending National Guard troops to DC streets?

    Explains the legal distinction between deploying the National Guard in Washington D.C. versus in a state, and the process of federalizing state Guard units.

  28. What You Need to Know if the National Guard Is Deployed to Your State by the Trump Regime - Movement Law Lab

    Defines the Posse Comitatus Act and outlines the specific conditions under which a president can deploy troops domestically, such as insurrection or rebellion.

  29. Operation Diligent Valor - The Marshall Project

    Serves as a curated collection of links confirming the name of the federal operation in Portland.

  30. World News - ClickOnDetroit

    A news aggregator confirming the recent ruling on the Portland deployment.

  31. Federal officers deployment in Portland is domestic terrorism, Oregon leaders say | NewsNation Prime - YouTube

    Reports on the administration's move to use California National Guard troops to circumvent the initial court ruling that blocked the use of Oregon's Guard.

  32. Portland Values and the Federal Government

    Provides context from the City of Portland's perspective on the conflict with the federal government.

  33. Rough & Tumble

    A news roundup that includes mention of legal challenges to Trump administration policies, providing broader context.