Oregon has taken a strong legal step to stop the federal government from sending National Guard troops to Portland. State officials argue that this move is heavy-handed and may not follow the law. The case has added another layer to the ongoing debates over the use of federal forces in U.S. cities.
On Sunday, Oregon filed a lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit challenges the order by President Donald Trump that sent troops to Portland to protect a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Officials say the protests around the ICE building have been small, with fewer than 30 people taking part in recent weeks, and there have been no arrests since mid-June.
The state argues that the deployment is unnecessary and could actually increase tensions. According to the lawsuit, bringing in troops could create more unrest and force local law enforcement to spend extra time managing the consequences. Officials describe the federal action as an overreach that interferes with Oregon’s right to manage its own law enforcement and National Guard resources. The lawsuit also states that far from promoting safety, sending troops could provoke public outcry and escalate unrest in the city.
Trump slaps 100% tariffs on medicines and new duties on trucks and furniture
Legal Arguments Against the Deployment
The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as defendants. It states that the federal government may not have the authority to take control of the Oregon National Guard. Under federal law, the president can only federalize a state’s National Guard in extreme cases, such as when there is an invasion or rebellion, or when regular forces cannot enforce the law. Oregon argues that none of these conditions exist in Portland right now.
Officials also cite the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. This amendment says that powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Oregon claims that sending federal troops to handle local protests violates this principle.
In addition, the lawsuit mentions the Posse Comitatus Act, a law that prevents federal troops from being used for normal law enforcement. The state says that sending the National Guard to manage civilian protests could break this law. The lawsuit highlights that Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement is being infringed by the federal deployment.
State Officials Speak Out
Oregon’s officials have voiced strong opposition to the deployment. Governor Tina Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson all criticized the federal action. They said it is an abuse of power and does not help local communities. Officials also argued that it places unnecessary strain on service members and law enforcement officers, who may have to respond to tensions caused by the deployment itself.
Brazil draws red line — Lula declares nations will not bow to Trump’s economic threats
Governor Kotek even appeared in downtown Portland alongside residents to show opposition to the federal troops. She stated publicly that “we don’t need military intervention here” and emphasized that the National Guard should remain under state control. State leaders maintain that the current protests are peaceful and small, making the deployment disproportionate and unnecessary.
Federal officials, including White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, have defended the action. They say it is lawful and necessary to protect federal property and personnel. According to Jackson, the deployment aims to prevent attacks on federal buildings and to ensure the safety of officers and staff. She also said the move comes after months of incidents where law enforcement officers were allegedly assaulted or threatened by protesters.
The lawsuit highlights a broader tension between state authority and federal power. Oregon’s filing is part of a series of legal challenges against the use of federal forces in cities across the United States. Officials stress that their goal is to protect public safety while respecting local control over law enforcement and military resources.