A federal judge in Oregon has issued a permanent injunction against the Trump administration, definitively blocking it from deploying National Guard troops to Portland. The ruling found that the administration did not meet the strict legal requirements necessary for such a domestic military deployment.
Judge's Ruling Cites Lack of Legal Basis
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by President Trump herself, delivered the significant decision on Friday, 8th November 2025. In a detailed 106-page opinion, Judge Immergut stated that the president had failed to establish that a state of "rebellion or danger of rebellion" existed in Portland. Furthermore, she found no evidence that the government was unable to enforce the law using its regular forces.
The ruling followed a three-day trial where both sides presented arguments regarding the nature of the protests at the city's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building. The judge's opinion noted that "although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025," they had remained largely peaceful since mid-June, with only isolated instances of violence.
Administration's Claims Versus the Evidence
The legal challenge was initiated in September by both the city of Portland and the state of Oregon, who sued the Trump administration over the planned deployment. President Trump had justified the move by claiming the troops were essential to protect federal personnel and property. He had publicly described Portland as "war ravaged" with "fires all over the place," characterisations that the judge had previously dismissed as "simply untethered to the facts."
Residents of Portland famously mocked the president's description on social media, posting images of their peaceful daily lives using the hashtag #WarRavagedPortland.
During the trial, testimony from local police officials indicated that after declaring one protest a riot on 14th June, the police department altered its strategy. Officers were directed to intervene only when specific person or property crimes occurred, and crowd numbers were reported to have "largely diminished" since the end of that month.
Legal and Political Repercussions
This case is part of a broader pattern of Democratic-led cities resisting what they perceive as federal overreach. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield hailed the verdict, stating in an emailed release that "The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law." He emphasised that the case was about ensuring facts, not political whims, guide the application of the law.
Judge Immergut had previously issued two temporary orders in early October to block the deployment. The first prevented the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members, and the second, issued a day later, blocked the deployment of Guard members from any state after the administration attempted to send troops from California. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had also ordered a halt to the deployment pending its own review.
The factual record developed during this trial is expected to serve as the foundation for any future appellate rulings on the matter. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press following the ruling.
