Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks at a news conference in Chicago on Oct. 6, 2025. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson stands at right. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in Illinois over Chicago’s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the state before deciding whether to block the move, the judge wrote in an order.

In a one-paragraph order, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry, whom Democratic President Joe Biden appointed to the bench, set an 11:59 p.m. Wednesday deadline for the Trump administration to respond in writing to the suit filed by the Democratic leaders of Illinois and its largest city, which they filed Monday morning. 

Perry did not immediately grant the restraining order Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson sought to block the deployment at the outset of the case.

Perry said she expected the federal government’s response to include evidence about when National Guard troops would arrive in Illinois, where in the state they would go and “the scope of the troops’ activities” once there. She set oral arguments for 11 a.m. Central Time on Thursday.

The suit seeks to stop Trump’s federalization of Illinois National Guard and mobilization of Texas National Guard troops to the state. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has also agreed to send Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, at Trump’s request.

Pritzker and Johnson’s complaint calls the federalization of state National Guard troops “illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional.” The Democrats added that the move was “patently pretextual and baseless,” meaning it could not satisfy the legal requirements for a president to wrest from a governor control of a state’s National Guard force.

Pritzker, appearing at a Tuesday event in Minneapolis with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said the federal government has been noncommunicative about the plan for the National Guard troops, but had received “reports” that troops have arrived at a federal facility in the state.

“We don’t know exactly where this is going to end,” he said. “What we know is that it is striking fear in the hearts of everybody in Chicago.”

A federal judge in another case blocked the deployment to Portland after city and Oregon leaders sued to stop it. The federal government appealed that order, and a panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Thursday, according to a scheduling notice posted Tuesday.

Insurrection Act cited by Trump

Trump has said the extraordinary use of troops, which raises serious legal and constitutional questions about the line between military forces and domestic law enforcement, is necessary to control crime in some Democrat-led cities, including Chicago and Portland. 

State and local leaders in those jurisdictions, as well as Los Angeles, have said military personnel are not needed to supplement local police. Pritzker called the proposed deployment to Chicago an “invasion.”

Trump indicated Monday he may seek to further escalate the push for military involvement domestically, saying he would have no qualms about invoking the Insurrection Act, which expands presidential power to use the military for law enforcement.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were getting killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.”

Democratic U.S. Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff from California — the three states where Trump has sent troops over the governors’ objections — called on Trump to withdraw the troops in a Tuesday statement that warned of the escalating conflict between blue states and the federal government.

“Donald Trump is stretching the limits of Presidential authority far past their breaking point and moving us closer to authoritarianism with each dangerous and unacceptable escalation of his campaign to force federal troops into American communities against the wishes of sovereign states in the Union he is supposed to represent,” the senators wrote.

Dems in Congress question raid

Trump’s use of National Guard troops is in part a response to protests in Democratic cities over this administration’s crackdown on immigration enforcement.

Trump has surged immigration enforcement officers to certain cities. Those agents have pursued sometimes aggressive enforcement, including a Sept. 30 raid on a Chicago apartment building that has been criticized for using military-style tactics.

A group of eight U.S. House Democrats wrote Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling for an investigation into that raid.

The members were Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, J. Luis Correa of California, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Shri Thanedar of Michigan, Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania and Delia Ramirez and Jesús “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois.

“We write to express our outrage over the immigration raid,” they said. “Treating a U.S. city like a war zone is intolerable.”

J. Patrick Coolican contributed to this report.

Federal police push towards a crowd of demonstrators at an ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland on Sat., Oct. 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

Hours after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops in Portland, the federal government began sending California National Guard troops to Oregon. 

Gov. Tina Kotek said Sunday that she’s aware that 101 California troops arrived in Oregon via plane overnight and that more were on their way. She received no official notice or correspondence from the federal government. 

Up to 300 soldiers from California are being sent to Oregon on Trump’s orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Sunday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email that Trump, “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement. For once, Gavin Newscum should stand on the side of law-abiding citizens instead of violent criminals destroying Portland and cities across the country.”

Kotek said the move, “appears to (be) intentional to circumvent yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge. The facts haven’t changed. There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target.”

Late Saturday afternoon, Trump-appointed federal Judge Karin Immergut approved a temporary restraining order to block the mobilization of Oregon troops until Oct. 18, with another check-in scheduled for Oct. 17. Attorneys for the federal government promptly filed a notice that they would appeal Immergut’s temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield signaled Sunday that the state is ready to sue again to prevent the deployment of troops from California or anywhere else. 

“This president is obviously hellbent on deploying the military in American cities, absent facts or authority to do so,” Rayfield said. “It is up to us and the courts to hold him accountable. That’s what we intend to do.”

Newsom said California will also pursue legal action to stop Trump’s “breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

“The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens,” Newsom said. “We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the president of the United States.”

Protests have continued outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, with about 100 people on the streets Saturday night. 

At one point during the evening, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters a block away from the facility, further than protesters who have been out for weeks said they’ve been forced back before. A Portland Police spokesperson said local law enforcement were not aware of or assisting with the federal agents’ actions.

The ramping up of federal pressure on Portland has coincided with a similar display of force in Chicago over the past few days. During a speech to military officials last week, Trump said he wanted to use Democratic cities as “training grounds” for the military. 

Senior reporter Alex Baumhardt contributed to this article. 

Federal officers atop the ICE building in Portland on Sunday, Sept. 28, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from federalizing and deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland following a challenge from the state and the city of Portland.

Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court in Portland granted the city and the Oregon Department of Justice a temporary restraining order Saturday afternoon, stopping for now Trump’s and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon Guard troops to Portland to guard federal buildings.

The order expires Oct. 18, and the parties will discuss Oct. 17 whether the order should be extended for another two weeks. Federal lawyers have until Oct. 17 to argue for a preliminary injunction to block the temporary restraining order. Late Saturday, attorneys for the federal government also filed a notice that they would appeal Immergut’s temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In her 30-page opinion, Immergut issued a powerful rebuke of Trump’s perception of his executive power and found he violated the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees police power within the states resides with the states. Immergut said protests in Portland were not by any definition a “rebellion” nor do they pose the “danger of a rebellion.”

“Furthermore, this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

Oregon Guard members have in recent days been training at Camp Rilea in Warrenton in preparation for a potential activation to Portland. They now go back under the command of Gov. Tina Kotek, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a Saturday evening news conference.

“Today’s ruling halts what appears to be the president’s attempt to normalize the United States military in our cities,” Rayfield said. “Mobilizing the United States military in our cities is not normal, it should not be normal, and we will fight to make sure that it is never normal.”

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson at the same news conference said the state “won through peace.”

“I’ve said from the very beginning, the number of federal troops that are needed or wanted is zero,” he said.

Kotek in a statement Saturday evening said the ruling meant “the truth has prevailed.”

“There is no insurrection in Portland,” Kotek continued. “No threat to national security. No fires, no bombs, no fatalities due to civil unrest. The only threat we face is to our democracy — and it is being led by President Donald Trump.”

Oregon’s senior U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, said in a statement Trump was provoking, not quelling, conflict by trying to deploy federal troops.

“I will keep working with local and state officials to ensure Trump does not keep wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to make Portland the center of his perverse fantasy about conducting assaults on U.S. cities,” Wyden said.

Trump at a Tuesday speech with military leaders said “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds” for the U.S. military. In the same meeting he described Portland as “like World War II.”

By Saturday morning, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said Trump had notified him that he would soon federalize 300 National Guard troops in Illinois to guard federal property in Chicago, against Pritzker’s wishes. It’s unclear yet what bearing Immergut’s ruling in Oregon could have on any lawsuits brought against Trump in Illinois over the attempted deployment there.

Trump has claimed in posts on his social media site TruthSocial that the ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland is under attack by anti-fascists and domestic terrorists. He used the site to announce on Sept. 27 that he’d attempt to deploy troops to Portland.

The facility has drawn weekly protests of just a couple dozen people in recent months, and they have remained mostly peaceful. The local U.S. attorney has brought charges against 26 people since early June for crimes at the protest site, including arson and resisting arrest.

Protests last weekend grew to a couple hundred following Trump’s call for federal reinforcement. The protests have stayed mostly peaceful, with Portland Police arresting several men throughout the week for fighting, including a right-wing influencer, according to reporting in The Oregonian. The U.S. Justice Department said Friday it’s launching an investigation into the Portland Police Department over that influencer’s arrest.

On Saturday, as hundreds protested at the ICE facility, federal agents used chemical sprays on the crowd and several people were arrested, according to reporting from Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Later in the evening, after Immergut’s ruling, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters back a block from the building, farther than protesters said they had been pushed back prior. A Portland Police Bureau spokesperson said the agency did not assist or have any knowledge of their actions and that the bureau has not had any discussions about jurisdiction.

Federal forces inexplicably tried to move all protestors out a city block using chemical irritants.

— Alex Baumhardt (@alexbaumhardt.bsky.social) 2025-10-05T03:51:26.440Z

“I call on all federal law enforcement to meet the high standards set by the Portland Police Bureau,” Wilson said. “We need them to focus on transparent use of force, clear officer identification, strict limits on chemical munitions and mandatory body worn cameras. The Federal Protective Services’ core values are service, integrity, honor and vigilance. Now is the time to live up to those principles, not erode them with masks and violence.”

Oregon’s U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, who represents the state’s 3rd Congressional District that includes parts of Portland, said she peacefully protested in the city’s Lloyd District on Saturday, and that she is concerned about the excessive force she saw federal officers using against protestors in videos taken at the ICE facility south of downtown.

“It is absolutely antithetical to your First Amendment rights, and we know that the administration is not encouraging restraint at this moment, so please continue to stay away from the ICE facility,” she said.

In a two-hour hearing over the temporary restraining order Friday, senior assistant Oregon attorney general Scott Kennedy called the attempted federal deployment “one of most dramatic infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history.”

Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the federal government, called protestors outside the ICE facility in Portland “vicious and cruel” and said federal police, ICE agents and Department of Homeland Security agents were overworked and needed Guard reinforcement.

Rayfield requested the restraining order motion on behalf of the state and the city of Portland as part of their broader lawsuit filed against Trump, Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

That suit, also filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, alleges the federal leaders and their agencies by attempting to send troops to Portland are violating the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees police power within states resides with the states. They also allege the federal government is violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. The state and Portland also allege the city is being singled out for political retaliation.