Today's News: Federal Appeals Court Allows Trump Administration to Deploy National Guard in Portland

This decision marks a significant legal victory for the administration, which is seeking to deploy federal forces in several Democratic-led cities, including Chicago, Memphis, and San Francisco.

Terrence Dorsey

Oct 21, 2025

Photo: Joshua Lott / The Washington Post

Date: October 20, 2025
Summary: A federal appeals court ruled to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, overturning a lower court’s injunction. This decision marks a significant legal victory for the administration, which is seeking to deploy federal forces in several Democratic-led cities, including Chicago, Memphis, and San Francisco, citing unrest and the need to protect federal assets. State and local leaders, however, argue that these deployments are an unconstitutional overreach of presidential power and that the administration exaggerates the severity of protests. The legal challenges are ongoing, with further appeals and hearings, including requests for an en banc rehearing in the 9th Circuit and an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding Chicago.

Sources

Key Points

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, allowed the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, overturning a lower court’s temporary restraining order.
The majority opinion emphasized that the President’s determination regarding the need for troop deployment is entitled to “great deference,” and that the lower court erred by substituting its own assessment of the facts.
The dissenting judge, Susan P. Graber, argued that the majority’s ruling “erodes core constitutional principles,” including sovereign states’ control over their militias and the people’s First Amendment rights.
State and local officials, particularly Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, are pursuing further legal action, including requests for an en banc rehearing by a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges.
The Portland case is part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration attempting to deploy federal forces in several Democratic-led cities (e.g., Chicago, Memphis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.), often over local objections.
A central point of contention is the severity of protests; the Trump administration characterizes cities like Portland as “war-ravaged” with violent riots, while state and local leaders argue protests are largely peaceful or manageable by local law enforcement.
The administration bases its deployments on a statute allowing the president to federalize the Guard when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” or in cases of “rebellion,” conditions which opponents argue are not met.
A separate legal battle is ongoing in Chicago, where lower courts have blocked deployments, and the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Unique Highlights

CNN notes that National Guard soldiers currently in Portland “are not conducting any operational activities at this time” and details a letter from senators requesting an inquiry into the cumulative effects of domestic deployments on military readiness and civil rights.
It also reports on Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff initially supporting but later backtracking on troop deployment in San Francisco, and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s comments on declining crime and increased police recruits.
Additionally, CNN highlights Memphis Mayor Paul Young’s distinction that Memphis’s situation differs from Portland/Chicago, as the Tennessee governor and president made the deployment decision together, and Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis’s intention to use troops for non-enforcement tasks.
NBC News details Justice Department attorneys’ argument that Judge Immergut’s ruling “improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief’s supervision of military operations” and highlights Judge Immergut’s finding that on September 26, law enforcement observed “8-15 people” at the ICE facility with “Energy was low, minimal activity,” directly countering Trump’s claims. It also points out that the 9th Circuit had previously blocked a similar restraining order involving National Guard troops in Los Angeles, setting a precedent for deference.
The New York Times provides specific alleged instances of violence cited by Judges Bade and Nelson to justify deployment, including attempts to set fires, throwing rocks and sticks, and threatening officers with knives. It mentions a September memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stating Guard troops could be stationed where protests are “likely to occur” and accompany federal agents. The article also draws a distinction between Portland and Chicago deployments, noting Portland’s ICE facility closure for three weeks versus Chicago’s remaining open.
The NBC News article “Judge demands answers from federal authorities…” focuses entirely on Chicago, detailing Judge Sara Ellis’s actions and concerns regarding federal agents’ continued use of tear gas and violent tactics after her previous restraining order, and her order for agents to wear body cameras. Chicago’s Deputy Mayor for Immigration and Refugee Rights, Beatriz Ponce De Leon, is quoted: “This type of escalation is going to cause harm. It’s not the people of Chicago — it is the federal agents.”
The Washington Post includes Judge Graber’s dissent arguing that “there had not been a single incident of protesters’ disrupting the execution of the laws” in the two weeks prior to Trump’s announcement, using the analogy: “A pot of tepid water is not a pot of boiling water, and it cannot hurt you, even if it was boiling three hours earlier.”
The Wall Street Journal specifies alleged violent acts by protesters at Portland’s Lindquist Federal Building cited by the majority, such as launching M80 fireworks and doxing federal officers. It also mentions Judge Graber’s observation of satirical costumes worn by anti-ICE protesters, like “chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all.” The article details Trump’s order for 300 California National Guardsmen after being blocked from mobilizing the Oregon Guard.
Fox News highlights the political nature of the dispute, with Democrats countering Trump’s descriptions as “hyperbolic and inaccurate.” It also reports on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago partially lifting a lower court order, allowing troops to remain at a U.S. Army Reserve base outside the city but not authorizing their use.

Contrasting Details

Scope of 9th Circuit Ruling on Portland Deployment:
- NBC News and The Washington Post state that the 9th Circuit ruling specifically applies only to Oregon National Guard troops, and Judge Immergut’s separate order blocking troops from other states has not yet been appealed by the Trump administration, though the majority predicted it would meet the same fate. The Washington Post notes that Judge Graber’s dissent argued the ruling would have no immediate effect because the second order remained unappealed.
- The New York Times states it was “not immediately clear whether the order also allowed President Trump to use National Guard soldiers from other states.”
- The Wall Street Journal notes Trump had already ordered 300 California National Guardsmen to Portland after being blocked from mobilizing Oregon Guard, and Immergut issued a second temporary order forbidding any National Guard units. The article implies the 9th Circuit ruling is against this secondblocking.
- CNN does not explicitly distinguish between the two orders, stating the ruling “will allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in Portland,” implying a broader scope.
Characterization of Protests and Justification for Deployment:
- Trump Administration/Majority Judges (e.g., CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News) consistently characterize Portland as “war-ravaged” with “violent riots” and “domestic terrorists,” citing specific instances of fire-setting, throwing objects, and threatening officers. They argue the President’s assessment deserves “great deference.”
- Oregon Officials/Dissenting Judge/Lower Court Judge (e.g., CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal) argue Trump’s descriptions are “exaggerated,” “untethered to the facts,” and “hyperbolic and inaccurate.” Judge Immergut found protests were “largely calm” or “generally peaceful” by September with “minimal activity” (NBC News, The Washington Post). Judge Graber called the government’s characterization of Portland as a “war zone” “absurd” (NBC News, The Wall Street Journal).
Chicago Deployment Status and Comparison to Portland:
- Fox News reports that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago partially lifted a lower court order, allowing troops to remain at a U.S. Army Reserve base outside the city but not authorizing their use in the city.
- The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal state that a federal judge in Chicago blockedTrump’s push to deploy troops, with the Trump administration appealing to the Supreme Court.
- The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal note the 9th Circuit majority’s distinction between Portland and Chicago, stating that Portland’s ICE facility was forced to close for three weeks, while in Chicago (Broadview), the ICE facility remained open, and “the federal government has been able to protect federal property and personnel without the National Guard’s help,” suggesting differing levels of federal need.

The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.

This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).

The Newsie Project