UPDATE: A federal judge has just blocked President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump, ruled that the president’s justification for troop deployment amidst claims of civil unrest was “untethered to facts.”
In her urgent decision, released earlier today, Immergut emphasized that the military presence risked violating constitutional principles. She stated, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The ruling follows Trump’s alarming characterization of Portland as “war-ravaged,” which he used to justify sending troops to the Democrat-controlled city.
Trump’s directive on September 27 directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to mobilize troops to protect federal facilities amid alleged threats from “Antifa” and other groups. However, Judge Immergut found no credible evidence to support claims of persistent violence targeting immigration authorities in Portland.
“Whatever the factual basis the President may have for these allegations, nothing in the record suggests that anything of this sort was occurring ‘every night’ outside the Portland ICE building or in the City of Portland in the days or weeks leading up to his directive,” Immergut wrote. This ruling marks a significant pushback against the Trump administration’s attempts to use military force in urban areas.
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek celebrated the ruling on social media, stating, “The federal court ruled in Oregon’s favor to block a military intervention in Portland. I believe the truth has prevailed.” She urged Trump to respect the court’s decision, asserting, “There is no insurrection in Portland, no threat to national security.”
This ruling is part of a broader trend, as the Trump administration has faced multiple legal challenges regarding troop deployments in Democrat-led cities. Just last month, a federal judge ruled that troop deployment to Los Angeles was unlawful, reflecting mounting judicial scrutiny of military involvement in civilian governance.
As this situation unfolds, the implications of the court’s ruling will resonate beyond Oregon. The case highlights the delicate balance between federal authority and constitutional rights, raising critical questions about the limits of military power in domestic affairs.
Next steps: The administration’s response to this ruling remains to be seen, as Trump has previously demonstrated a willingness to defy court decisions. Observers will be watching closely for any further developments in this politically charged situation.
Readers are encouraged to share this urgent update as the implications for civil liberties and federal overreach continue to unfold. Stay tuned for more updates on this evolving story.
