US Appeals Court Lets Trump Send Troops to Portland/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A U.S. appeals court has ruled President Trump can take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. However, a separate order still blocks him from deploying them. Legal battles continue as state officials challenge the president’s authority amid minimal protest activity in Portland.
Trump Oregon National Guard Authority Quick Looks
- Appeals court allows Trump to take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops.
- Deployment remains blocked due to a second restraining order still in place.
- Oregon AG plans to challenge the decision with a broader court panel.
- Legal challenges center on federal authority versus state control.
- Federal troops originally intended to protect federal property in Portland.
- Justice Department claims courts should not interfere in presidential deployment decisions.
- Minimal protest activity reported in Portland, contradicting Trump’s justifications.
- Previous California deployment ruled illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Deep Look: Appeals Court Grants Trump Control Over Oregon Guard Amid Ongoing Deployment Block
PORTLAND, Ore. — October 20, 2025 — A federal appeals court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to take control of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, marking a legal win for the administration in its ongoing efforts to deploy federal forces in Democratic-led states. However, a separate judicial order continues to bar the president from actually deploying the troops — at least for now.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily overturned one of two restraining orders issued earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut. The first order blocked Trump from activating the Oregon troops for federal service. The second, issued after Trump attempted to bypass the first by deploying California troops instead, prohibits the use of any National Guard forces in Oregon.
The appellate court sided with the Trump administration’s argument that the president is likely to succeed in asserting his constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard when he deems it necessary to enforce federal law.
But Judge Immergut’s second restraining order remains intact, meaning no troops may yet be deployed to Portland or elsewhere in Oregon. The Justice Department is now urging Judge Immergut to lift that order as well, arguing that the appeals court’s decision changes the legal landscape significantly.
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision staying the first TRO is a significant change in law that plainly warrants dissolution of this Court’s second TRO,” administration attorneys wrote, pressing for immediate action that would allow deployment.
Trump has faced ongoing legal resistance in his attempts to deploy National Guard troops to cities governed by Democrats. A judge in California previously ruled that his deployment of thousands of National Guard troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — a federal law limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The administration has appealed that decision and recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to approve a similar deployment in the Chicago area.
In Oregon, the administration argues the troops are needed to protect federal property in Portland, where nightly protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building have occurred since June. These protests have mostly been small and confined to a single block, though federal agents have periodically used tear gas to disperse demonstrators. Larger gatherings involving counterprotesters and media have occurred on occasion.
The Department of Homeland Security claims it has been forced to divert personnel from immigration enforcement duties elsewhere to defend Portland facilities — something they argue the National Guard could help alleviate.
Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee herself, previously rejected these arguments, stating that the administration’s depiction of Portland as “war-torn” is “simply untethered to the facts.” But the appellate court majority — Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, both also Trump appointees — ruled that the president’s decision-making deserved greater deference.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Bade acknowledged that Trump may have exaggerated the situation on social media but still found the legal grounds for deployment to be reasonably justified. “Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem,” she wrote, “the facts appear to support his decision.”
However, the dissenting judge, Susan Graber — an appointee of former President Bill Clinton — strongly disagreed, warning against unchecked executive power.
“Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who vowed to request a review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit.
Judge Graber also criticized the administration’s timing and rationale. She pointed out that in the two weeks leading up to Trump’s September 27 social media post — which announced his intent to deploy troops — there were no documented incidents of protests interfering with law enforcement.
“It is hard to understand how a tiny protest causing no disruptions could possibly satisfy the standard that the President is unable to execute the laws,” she wrote in her dissent.
As legal wrangling continues, the next steps remain uncertain. Trump may have cleared one hurdle in his bid to assert control over state National Guard forces, but until the remaining restraining order is lifted, the troops will remain on standby.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.