Oregon Sues Trump Over Portland National Guard Deployment
Officials in Oregon have launched a legal battle against former President Donald Trump, filing a federal lawsuit to block his order deploying National Guard troops in Portland. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland filed jointly on Sunday, targeting Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
The lawsuit describes Trump’s directive as “heavy-handed” and unconstitutional, arguing it undermines state sovereignty and escalates tensions rather than promoting safety.
Why Trump Sent Troops to Portland
Trump’s order, announced on his Truth Social platform, directed Hegseth to “provide all necessary Troops” to Portland. The move came after protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, which Trump claimed was “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
However, Oregon officials counter that the protests have been small — with fewer than 30 participants in recent weeks — and note that no arrests have been made since mid-June.
Oregon’s Argument: Sovereignty and the Constitution
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, joined by Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, blasted Trump’s order as “an abuse of power and a disservice to our communities and our service members.”
The lawsuit argues that Trump lacks authority under Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which only allows the president to federalize state National Guards during invasions, rebellions, or when regular forces are unable to execute the law.
Oregon also cites the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from being used for civilian law enforcement.
“Defendants have thus infringed on Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and National Guard resources,” the lawsuit states.
The White House Response
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the deployment, insisting the president’s actions were “lawful” and intended to “make Portland safer.”
But Oregon officials argue the opposite, claiming Trump’s move would incite more unrest. “Far from promoting public safety, Defendants’ provocative and arbitrary actions threaten to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry,” the filing reads.
Why It Matters
This lawsuit adds to a growing list of legal challenges over Trump’s use of federal power in U.S. cities. At its core, the case raises questions about the balance between federal authority and state sovereignty — a recurring flashpoint in American politics.
With Oregon leaders pledging to resist what they see as federal overreach, the case could set an important precedent for how far a president can go in deploying the National Guard without state consent.