Trump considers invoking insurrection act to deploy National Guard in Portland

In the United States, President Donald Trump suggested he might invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops in cities like Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests and unrest. On October 6, 2025, he indicated to reporters that he felt the situation required federal intervention due to what he described as a 'criminal insurrection' occurring in the city. This was after a federal judge had blocked his administration's attempt to mobilize National Guard troops to Portland for a second time, highlighting significant tensions between the federal government and state level authorities. The Insurrection Act, established in 1807, empowers the president to deploy military troops within the U.S. under certain circumstances, such as when a state fails to maintain order or defies federal law. Amid escalating violence and confrontations during immigration enforcement operations, Trump has argued that strong action is necessary to safeguard American citizens and federal property. He highlighted his previous use of National Guard deployments in areas like Washington, D.C., to combat rising crime rates, citing a substantial reduction in criminal activities as a justified outcome of such measures. However, Trump's intentions have prompted severe scrutiny from critics across political lines. Many argue that the unprecedented use of federal military forces to manage civil unrest reflects an authoritarian approach, asserting that such measures would stir further chaos rather than resolve existing issues. Legal analysts have expressed divided opinions on whether Trump holds sufficient authority under the Insurrection Act, which has historically been invoked sparingly and often in cases with clear insurrection or rebellion. The deployment of troops without state consent raises significant legal and ethical concerns about the limits of presidential power. In response to potential troop deployments, Democratic politicians from affected regions, including Illinois and Oregon, have expressed fierce opposition, asserting that the administration is attempting to undermine state sovereignty and bypass legal restrictions. In this context, the situation has ignited broader discussions regarding the relationship between federal and state governments, civil liberties, and the role of military force in domestic governance. As Trump navigates ongoing legal challenges surrounding his proposed troop deployments, the tension between the state and federal governments remains a focal point of the national discourse on law enforcement and public safety.