A federal judge in Oregon has delivered a stunning rebuke to Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Portland, ruling that there was no credible evidence of widespread violence to justify federal action. The final order, issued by Trump-appointed Judge Karin Immergut, bars federal officials from sending troops to Oregon and marks a significant legal victory for state authorities. The case has been at the center of weeks-long tensions between the White House and local governments over protest management and the limits of presidential power.
Read: Megyn Kelly Sparks Reactions After Admitting Gavin Newsom Is ‘Hot But Hollow’
Final Ruling Halts Federal Deployment
Judge Karin Immergut’s Friday ruling permanently blocks Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland. In her detailed order, she found that protests near the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility were “predominantly peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence.” The court concluded that such conditions did not justify military involvement and that most confrontations stemmed from clashes between protesters and counter-protesters rather than with federal agents.
Also read: Trump’s Inner Circle Sabotages His Venezuela Strike Plan
Earlier Temporary Ban Extended
Earlier in the week, Immergut had already restricted Trump’s ability to send the National Guard into Portland until at least Friday. She wrote at the time that she had “found no credible evidence” suggesting the protests were out of control before the president moved to federalize the troops. The latest decision formalizes and extends that earlier injunction, turning it into a binding final order.
Also read: Tears in the Auditorium, Hillsboro’s Cry for Protection From ICE
Limits on Federal Authority
While acknowledging that she “may lack jurisdiction to enjoin President Trump in the performance of his official duties,” Judge Immergut clarified that her order applies directly to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The ruling prevents both officials from deploying members of the National Guard to Oregon, effectively neutralizing the administration’s immediate plans for military intervention in the state.
Also read: FBI Chief Kash Patel Under Fire for Using Taxpayer Jets to Visit Girlfriend
Legal Battles Across U.S. Cities
The Portland case is part of a wider legal struggle between the Trump administration and several U.S. cities, including Chicago, over the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the National Guard to quell protests. Federal intervention in local law enforcement matters has sparked controversy nationwide, raising constitutional questions about executive overreach and state sovereignty.
Also read: Trump’s Pam Bondi Suffers Embarrassing Defeat in D.C. Sandwich Assault Trial
Protests Around ICE Facility
Since June, the ICE facility in south-west Portland has been the focal point of continuous protests. The demonstrations began after Portland police declared one of them a riot, intensifying tensions between local activists and federal authorities. In September, the city of Portland and the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration following the president’s directive to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard, setting off a months-long courtroom battle.
Also read: “Dozy Don Is Back”: Newsom Mocks Trump, 79, After Oval Office Nap Moment
Temporary Restraining Order and Appeal
Before the final ruling, Immergut had issued a temporary restraining order barring any immediate deployment of the National Guard. The Trump administration promptly appealed that decision, arguing that federal intervention was necessary to maintain order. However, the testimony presented in court painted a different picture, one of largely peaceful protests disrupted by sporadic, low-level incidents.
Also read: Reporters Stunned as Trump Brags America Could Destroy the World ‘150 Times’ Over
Oregon Officials Celebrate Legal Win
Following the ruling, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield hailed the decision as “a huge victory.” He emphasized the importance of accountability and adherence to the law, stating, “The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.” The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power and a safeguard of state rights.