Oregon challenges Trump over federal control of National Guard troops
- Oregon has initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent the federalization of its National Guard troops, following a federal order for their deployment to Portland.
- The state's officials argue that there is no current threat to public safety that requires military intervention, highlighting the diminished scale of protests in recent weeks.
- This lawsuit challenges the limits of presidential authority and adherence to federal laws governing military involvement in domestic situations, potentially impacting future interactions between state and federal powers.
In a significant legal challenge, the state of Oregon took action against the Trump administration on September 29, 2025, by filing a lawsuit aimed at preventing the federalization of 200 National Guard troops. This deployment was ordered by President Trump in response to ongoing protests in Portland, where disturbances were reportedly minimal and did not merit military intervention. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and seeks a temporary restraining order against the president's directive. Oregon's officials, including Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield, emphasized that there is no insurrection or public safety threat that warrants military action. They pointed out that the protests had diminished, involving fewer than thirty people, and highlighted that local authorities had the capacity to manage public safety without federal intervention. Notably, Oregon's legal argument hinges on claims that the president exceeded his authority to federalize state National Guard members as specified under federal law. The Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement, is also a key factor in the lawsuit. Lawyers for Oregon contend that the federal order conflicts with established laws that delineate when military forces may be called to action domestically. The outcome of the legal battle could set a precedent for how state and federal powers are balanced in similar situations. The potential ruling from U.S. District Judge Michael Simon will not only address this immediate issue but could also influence how future administrations may respond to civil unrest and the extent of governors' powers over their National Guard units.