A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking former President Donald Trump’s recent plan to deploy federalized troops to Portland, Oregon, marking a significant legal setback in his effort to send military forces to the city amid ongoing protests. The move is part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon and the City of Portland challenging the legality of the troop deployment.
On September 27, 2025, President Trump announced on his social media platform that he was directing Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, to send federal troops to “protect” Portland from what he described as threats from “Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” The announcement indicated willingness to authorize the use of “Full Force, if necessary.” The following day, Secretary Hegseth issued a memorandum authorizing the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard service members to the city over the vociferous objections of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek.
In response, the State of Oregon and the City of Portland swiftly filed a lawsuit on September 28, 2025, against Trump, Secretary Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs argued that the troop deployment violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act and statutes governing the use of the National Guard, specifically asserting that the administration’s actions exceeded legal authority (ultra vires).
On October 4, 2025, the U.S. District Court granted a temporary restraining order in favor of Oregon and Portland, effectively blocking the deployment of the federalized National Guard troops to the city. The judge’s ruling underscored statutory limits on the president’s ability to militarize law enforcement functions and emphasized the objections by the state’s governor, highlighting the constitutional and legal challenges inherent in such federal interventions.
Adding to the nationwide dimension of the conflict, California also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after it directed 300 California National Guard troops to deploy to Portland. Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to fight the administration’s order, emphasizing state sovereignty and the limits on federal intrusion into local law enforcement matters.
The controversy over troop deployments to Portland traces back to heightened tensions following years of protests, some of which have involved violent confrontations. Previous attempts by federal entities to intervene have sparked legal battles over the scope of presidential powers and the role of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Legal experts note that this ruling reasserts the boundaries established by the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal troops from performing law enforcement duties on U.S. soil without specific authorization. This case also raises deep questions over the balance of federal and state powers, especially concerning the National Guard, which is typically under state control unless federally activated with consent or in specific circumstances authorized by law.
As this legal battle continues, the ruling represents a pivotal check on unilateral executive actions related to domestic military deployments, reinforcing the necessity for legal and intergovernmental consensus on the use of force within the United States.
Officials in Oregon and Portland have welcomed the ruling, emphasizing the importance of protecting civil liberties and local governance. The Trump administration has yet to announce its next steps following the court’s decision.