On September 28, 2025, the state of Oregon filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration one day after President Donald Trump ordered troops to Portland. The lawsuit is seeking to block Trump’s order to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops (under federal control) to Portland.
The lawsuit was announced by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield on Sunday in an X post following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday memo to Governor Tina Kotek directing 200 Oregon National Guard members to undertake "federal duties" for 60 days.
BREAKING NEWS: Oregon sues Trump administration over unlawful federalization of National Guard. Read more. pic.twitter.com/Qamd4C5obX
— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) September 28, 2025
This means, the troops are to be federalized under Title 10 authority for 60 days. And according to the President, he said the deployment were necessary to put an end to the protests outside an immigration facility in Portland by protecting federal property “where protests are occurring or are likely to occur.
Meanwhile, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield argue that there is no insurrection or severe public safety threat that justifies military intervention, and that the deployment is unlawful.
The lawsuit filed in Oregon's federal court labeled the activation of the National Guard as an "unlawful federalization." The lawsuit names Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as defendants.
Legal and Factual Issues
On a norms, US Governors have authorities over their states' national guard. But Trump was able to bypass that authorities by deploying Guard troops from DC because of its status as a federal district. And this is not the first time he’s done so. If you can recall, Trump previously sent National Guard troops to Memphis, though that move had the backing of the state’s governor.
In California, however, Governor Gavin Newsom took a different path, successfully challenging Trump’s attempt to federalize Guard troops there back in June. A federal judge in California ruled that a prior deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles under the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act. That case—Newsom v. Trump—is seen as a precedent.
In similar side with the Governor Newsom's claims, Oregon’s lawsuit also contends Trump's action oversteps presidential authority, violates the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement),undermines state sovereignty over its Guard, and flouts other constitutional protections.
Oregon argues that recent protests near an ICE facility in Portland have been relatively small and peaceful. The state claims that fewer than 30 people are not warranting a military response, and that deploying troops risks escalating tensions rather than restoring calm.
The Oregon lawsuit states that the president lacks authority to deploy the guard. The law permits federal control of the National Guard only in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws cannot otherwise be enforced—conditions that Oregon says are not happening.
“Oregon communities are stable, and our local officials have been clear: we have the capacity to manage public safety without federal interference,” Rayfield wrote in the post. “What we’re seeing is not about public safety, it’s about the president flexing political muscle under the guise of law and order, chasing a media hit at the expense of our community.”
Meanwhile, Trump and administration spokespeople maintain that federal property (such as ICE facilities) and federal personnel are under threat, citing past protest disruptions, assaults on officers, and “riots.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Oregon branch have condemned the deployment, describing the president’s claims as exaggerated.
What Happen Next?
Oregon’s government is asking the court to block Trump’s deployment immediately, reaffirm state authority over its Guard, and protect civil liberties including not violating the Posse Comitatus Act and not infringing on residents’ First Amendment rights to protest.
Donald Trump has seen a block in democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, and the outcome in Portland could influence how far the federal government can assert control over state military forces and civil law enforcement in contested political circumstances.
If courts rule against Trump’s deployment powers, this could limit future uses of federal forces in similar settings. If courts uphold his authority, it may expand executive reach over domestic military action.
What do you think about this situation? Is Trump doing the right thing or he's just "flexing political muscle" as the Oragon officials have claimed? Let's know your opinions in the comments section below.
