Trump Defies Courts in Battle Over Portland National Guard Control

Paul Riverbank, 10/9/2025Trump defies court order, deploys National Guard to Portland amid escalating federal-state power struggle.

Let me break this down. Trump ordered 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland last week, citing threats to federal property and ICE facilities. It's reminiscent of similar moves we saw during the 2020 protests, though the legal landscape has shifted considerably since then. Judge Karin Immergut's initial blocking order sparked what I can only describe as a fascinating game of jurisdictional chess.

The White House's response was predictably swift and characteristically dramatic. Stephen Miller took to X (formerly Twitter) with his usual constitutional flourishes, while Trump himself bypassed Oregon entirely by calling up California's National Guard instead. I've covered enough of these federal-state showdowns to recognize when we're watching a significant precedent in the making.

What's particularly striking about the Ninth Circuit's ruling is its careful threading of the needle. The three-judge panel – and yes, the mixed partisan appointments matter here – essentially split the baby. They're allowing federalized troops to stay put while maintaining restrictions on their Portland deployment. It's the kind of Solomon-like decision that tends to frustrate everyone equally.

Governor Kotek's pushback against federal intervention echoes a familiar refrain in American politics. We've seen this dance before – states asserting their sovereignty while the federal government flexes its muscle. The twist here is the involvement of multiple states, with Texas activating 400 National Guard members and California's AG Rob Banta crying foul over what he's termed an "unprecedented" circumvention.

Trump's deployment order, posted on Truth Social, caught my attention for its particular choice of words. Referring to Pete Hegseth as "Secretary of War" – a title that hasn't existed since 1947 – speaks volumes about the administration's messaging strategy. It's these kinds of details that often get overlooked in the broader narrative but tell us much about the political theater at play.

The October 18 deadline looms large, and the October 9 arguments will likely prove crucial. Having covered similar cases throughout my career, I expect we'll see some fascinating constitutional arguments about the limits of presidential power and state sovereignty. The outcome could reshape how we think about domestic security operations for years to come.

In my view, this isn't just about Portland anymore. It's about the fundamental question of federal authority in an era of increasing state-federal tension. As we await the full arguments, one thing's certain – this case will be studied in law schools for years to come, regardless of how it ultimately resolves.

The latest chapter in America's ongoing federal-state power struggle unfolded yesterday, as the Ninth Circuit Court delivered what I'd call a masterclass in judicial balancing acts. Their ruling on Trump's Portland National Guard deployment manages to both restrict and enable federal authority – a nuance that shouldn't surprise anyone who's followed similar cases over the years.Let me break this down. Trump ordered 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland last week, citing threats to federal property and ICE facilities. It's reminiscent of similar moves we saw during the 2020 protests, though the legal landscape has shifted considerably since then. Judge Karin Immergut's initial blocking order sparked what I can only describe as a fascinating game of jurisdictional chess.The White House's response was predictably swift and characteristically dramatic. Stephen Miller took to X (formerly Twitter) with his usual constitutional flourishes, while Trump himself bypassed Oregon entirely by calling up California's National Guard instead. I've covered enough of these federal-state showdowns to recognize when we're watching a significant precedent in the making.What's particularly striking about the Ninth Circuit's ruling is its careful threading of the needle. The three-judge panel – and yes, the mixed partisan appointments matter here – essentially split the baby. They're allowing federalized troops to stay put while maintaining restrictions on their Portland deployment. It's the kind of Solomon-like decision that tends to frustrate everyone equally.Governor Kotek's pushback against federal intervention echoes a familiar refrain in American politics. We've seen this dance before – states asserting their sovereignty while the federal government flexes its muscle. The twist here is the involvement of multiple states, with Texas activating 400 National Guard members and California's AG Rob Banta crying foul over what he's termed an "unprecedented" circumvention.Trump's deployment order, posted on Truth Social, caught my attention for its particular choice of words. Referring to Pete Hegseth as "Secretary of War" – a title that hasn't existed since 1947 – speaks volumes about the administration's messaging strategy. It's these kinds of details that often get overlooked in the broader narrative but tell us much about the political theater at play.The October 18 deadline looms large, and the October 9 arguments will likely prove crucial. Having covered similar cases throughout my career, I expect we'll see some fascinating constitutional arguments about the limits of presidential power and state sovereignty. The outcome could reshape how we think about domestic security operations for years to come.In my view, this isn't just about Portland anymore. It's about the fundamental question of federal authority in an era of increasing state-federal tension. As we await the full arguments, one thing's certain – this case will be studied in law schools for years to come, regardless of how it ultimately resolves.