Washington, D.C. – October 6, 2025
The White House issued a sharp rebuke on Monday against a federal judge’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s repeated attempts to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests outside a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. The administration’s strong response underscores a deepening conflict between federal authority and judicial oversight, highlighting tensions over the use of military forces in domestic civil matters. The clash has reignited debates about the balance of power, the role of the National Guard in civil unrest, and the legal boundaries of presidential authority.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt delivered a pointed critique of U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s ruling during a press briefing, describing the decision as “untethered in reality and in the law.” Leavitt defended the president’s actions, citing his authority under Title 10, U.S. Code Section 12406, which grants the president the power to activate the National Guard in specific circumstances. “With all due respect to that judge, the president is using his authority as commander in chief,” Leavitt stated. “The law clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard in cases where he deems it appropriate.”
The controversy stems from President Trump’s directive to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, where daily protests have taken place outside an ICE facility. The White House has characterized these demonstrations as a threat to federal property and public safety, alleging that protesters have engaged in violent and disruptive behavior. Leavitt accused the protesters of “disrespecting law enforcement” and “inciting violence,” claiming that the ICE facility “has been really under siege by these anarchists outside.” She emphasized that the president’s primary objective is to protect federal buildings and assets, asserting that the deployment of the National Guard is a necessary measure to restore order.
However, Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order on Sunday, marking the second time she has blocked the administration’s efforts to send National Guard troops to Portland. The judge’s ruling came in response to the administration’s attempt to deploy members of the California National Guard, which Immergut viewed as an effort to circumvent her earlier order prohibiting such deployments. The legal battle escalated after California joined Oregon in a lawsuit challenging the president’s directive, further complicating the administration’s plans.
In her initial ruling on Saturday, Immergut rejected the White House’s portrayal of the protests as “violent.” She noted that the demonstrations “were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days – or even weeks – leading up to the president’s directive.” Immergut’s order emphasized the historical and constitutional significance of limiting military involvement in civilian affairs, stating, “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.” She argued that allowing the deployment of the National Guard in this context risked blurring the line between civil and military power, which could undermine the nation’s commitment to constitutional law over martial law.
The White House’s push to deploy the National Guard reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration and local authorities in Portland, where protests have persisted for months. The demonstrations, primarily centered around issues of immigration policy and federal law enforcement tactics, have drawn national attention. Critics of the administration argue that the protests have been largely peaceful, with occasional clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. They contend that deploying the National Guard would escalate tensions and infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.
Leavitt’s remarks during the press briefing sought to counter these criticisms, framing the protests as a direct threat to federal authority. “The president wants to ensure that our federal buildings and our assets are protected, and that’s exactly what he’s trying to do,” she said. The spokesperson also highlighted what she described as a pattern of disrespect toward law enforcement, accusing protesters of engaging in tactics designed to provoke violence. However, she provided no specific evidence during the briefing to substantiate claims of widespread anarchy or violence at the ICE facility.
Immergut’s rulings have sparked a broader debate about the appropriate use of the National Guard in domestic settings. The National Guard, while often associated with disaster response and homeland security, has historically been deployed in cases of civil unrest, such as during the civil rights movement or the 1992 Los Angeles riots. However, its use in modern protests has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates, who argue that militarizing responses to demonstrations could suppress dissent and erode democratic principles.
In her written opinion, Immergut elaborated on the potential dangers of expanding military involvement in civilian matters. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power – to the detriment of this nation,” she wrote. The judge underscored the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the roles of civilian law enforcement and the military, warning that conflating the two could set a dangerous precedent.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal Immergut’s ruling, signaling that the legal battle is far from over. Legal experts anticipate that the case could escalate to higher courts, potentially reaching the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or even the Supreme Court. Such an appeal would likely focus on the scope of presidential authority under U.S. Code Section 12406 and the extent to which the judiciary can limit executive actions in matters of national security and public safety.
The dispute also highlights the broader political context surrounding the Portland protests. The city has become a flashpoint for debates over federal versus state authority, with Oregon officials, including Governor Kate Brown, consistently opposing the Trump administration’s interventions. Brown and other state leaders have argued that federal actions, including the deployment of federal agents to Portland in 2020, have exacerbated tensions rather than resolved them. The addition of California to the lawsuit against the National Guard deployment further underscores the regional resistance to what some state officials view as federal overreach.
For the White House, the Portland situation represents a critical test of its law-and-order agenda. President Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to crack down on protests he deems unlawful, framing his administration’s response as a defense of national security and public safety. However, critics argue that the administration’s rhetoric and actions risk inflaming divisions and alienating communities that feel targeted by heavy-handed federal tactics.
As the legal and political battles unfold, the situation in Portland remains fluid. Protesters continue to gather outside the ICE facility, undeterred by the threat of federal intervention. Meanwhile, the White House’s aggressive push to deploy the National Guard has drawn scrutiny from civil rights organizations, legal scholars, and lawmakers who warn of the broader implications for democratic governance.
The outcome of this conflict could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, as well as the relationship between federal and state governments. For now, Judge Immergut’s rulings serve as a significant check on the administration’s ambitions, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional principles. However, with an appeal looming, the debate over the National Guard’s role in Portland is likely to intensify, further polarizing an already divided nation.
In the meantime, the White House remains steadfast in its position, with Leavitt reiterating that the president’s actions are both lawful and necessary. “The president is acting within his authority to protect federal property and ensure the safety of our communities,” she said. As the situation evolves, all eyes will be on Portland, where the clash between federal power and local resistance continues to unfold.
