A shopper who receives SNAP benefits slides an EBT card at a checkout counter in a Washington, D.C., grocery store in December 2024. (Photo by U.S. Department of Agriculture)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Saturday issued a written order saying there is “no question” that U.S. Department of Agriculture contingency funds must be used to provide food assistance for 42 million Americans during the government shutdown.

Rhode Island U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. had said during a Friday hearing he was granting a temporary restraining order sought by cities and nonprofit groups. McConnell ordered that the government distribute payments of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. 

Because Congress is locked in a stalemate over a stopgap spending bill and did not appropriate money for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Trump administration officials had said the program could not provide SNAP benefits beyond Saturday.

In response to McConnell, President Donald Trump in a social media post later Friday said administration lawyers believed the funds could not legally be paid and that he needed clarification about how to distribute SNAP benefits. 

“I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” Trump said.  “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding …”

Government lawyers also filed a brief in the Rhode Island case asking McConnell to clarify how his order could legally be carried out, noting it was delivered orally and there was no written transcript.

In his Saturday order, McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, quoted Trump and said, “So, here’s the ORDER and here’s the legal direction from the Court.”

In a footnote, the McConnell order also said: “The Court greatly appreciates the President’s quick and definitive response to this Court’s Order and his desire to provide the necessary SNAP funding.”

McConnell said it was likely that the plaintiffs would succeed in their case. He noted that Congress appropriated funds for SNAP in an annual spending bill, and lawmakers directed that $3 billion should be put in reserve through Sept. 30, 2026. Another $3 billion in a later bill was put aside until Sept. 30, 2027.

 “There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown; in fact, the President during his first term issued guidance indicating that these contingency funds are available if SNAP funds lapse due to a government shutdown,” McConnell said.

Two options in written order

Because the $6 billion is not enough to cover the estimated $9 billion cost of November benefits, government lawyers have said it would be difficult to determine reduced benefits, McConnell said. 

He said USDA then should “within its discretion, find the additional funds necessary” to fund the full $9 billion, suggesting use of $23 billion in a fund for state child nutrition programs.

If the government chooses to make full SNAP payments for November, it must do so by the end of the day Monday, he said. If instead the government makes a partial payment of SNAP funds, then it must pay out all the $6 billion in contingency funds by Wednesday, he said.

He asked the government to update him by noon Monday how it was complying with the order.

In a separate case, a federal judge in Boston also ruled Friday that the USDA plan to pause SNAP was illegal — but gave the Trump administration until Monday to respond to her finding before she decides on a motion to force the benefits be paid despite the ongoing government shutdown.

No matter what happens on Monday, experts and a key member of Congress have said that some SNAP recipients still may see delays in their benefits because changes in administration from the federal government to states to vendors take time. In states, SNAP benefits are loaded onto cards on varying dates, but the Saturday cutoff would have been effective for November benefits.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025, with a sign advising the Capitol Visitors Center is closed due to the government shutdown.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday clarified and broadened a temporary restraining order she issued earlier this week that blocks the Trump administration from laying off federal employees during the ongoing government shutdown. 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston said during an emergency hearing the restraining order affects any agency that has employees who are members of the unions that brought the lawsuit or are in collective bargaining units.

The Trump administration choosing not to recognize those union activities based on an earlier executive order doesn’t mean an agency can issue layoff notices, she said. 

Illston, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, specifically said the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services must comply with the TRO and cannot issue Reductions in Force, or RIFs. 

“It is not complicated,” Illston said. “During this time these agencies should not be doing RIFs of the protected folks that we’re talking about.” 

She also added the National Federation of Federal Employees, Service Employees International Union and National Association of Government Employees, Inc. to the lawsuit and the temporary restraining order. 

Meanwhile, as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 extends with no end in sight, administration officials said they will freeze $11 billion in Army Corps of Engineers projects and furlough Energy Department employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Unions argue administration ignoring part of judge’s order

The California case was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing those unions, said during the hearing the Trump administration had been “overly narrowly interpreting the scope of the TRO and ignoring some of the language in the TRO.”

Leonard pointed to a brief filed by the Department of Health and Human Services that said the agency hadn’t issued any layoff notices to workers covered by the TRO, even though an earlier filing to the court said HHS had sent notices to 982 employees.

That department, Leonard said, appeared to take the position that an earlier executive order ended all union representation at HHS. 

“The government is well aware that is a disputed issue,” Leonard said. 

Elizabeth Hedges, counsel for the Trump administration, said after considerable back and forth that she didn’t agree with Leonard and the judge’s interpretation of the temporary restraining order’s impact. 

“I would submit that’s not what the TRO says,” Hedges said, though she later told the judge she would make sure the administration complied with the updated explanation of the restraining order.  

Hedges also told the judge the Interior Department didn’t previously disclose it was contemplating layoffs because officials began considering those RIFs before the shutdown and were only going to implement them during the shutdown because it’s gone on so long. 

The judge ordered the Trump administration to tell the court by 9 a.m. Pacific on Monday about any actual or imminent layoff notices under the full scope of the restraining order. 

Army Corps to pause billions in big-city projects 

White House budget director Russ Vought announced hours before the emergency court hearing the administration plans to freeze and may unilaterally cancel billions more in funding approved by Congress. 

“The Democrat shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to manage billions of dollars in projects,” Vought wrote in a social media post. “The Corps will be immediately pausing over $11 billion in lower-priority projects & considering them for cancellation, including projects in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore. More information to come from the Army Corps of Engineers.”

The Trump administration has been cited several times by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for not spending money approved by Congress as lawmakers intended. 

Generally, after Congress approves a spending bill and it becomes law, the president is supposed to faithfully implement its provisions. 

Any president that wants to cancel funding lawmakers already approved is supposed to send Congress a rescissions request, which starts a 45-day clock for members to approve, modify, or ignore the request. 

The Trump administration followed that legal pathway earlier this year when it asked Congress to cancel billions in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid. 

The House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, approved the request after senators preserved full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

The White House budget office sent up another rescissions request in late August, asking lawmakers to cancel billions of additional spending on foreign aid programs. 

Neither chamber has taken action to approve that request, but Vought believes that since it was sent up within the last 45 days of the fiscal year, he is allowed to cancel that funding without congressional action. 

The GAO and Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, have both called the maneuver, known as a pocket rescission, unlawful. 

Nuclear security workers to be furloughed

The Trump administration also announced Friday that it would have more than 1,000 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration stop working for the remainder of the shutdown, joining hundreds of thousands of others on furlough. According to its website, the NNSA’s job “is to ensure the United States maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile through the application of unparalleled science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing.”

An Energy Department spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “approximately 1,400 NNSA federal employees will be furloughed as of Monday, October 20th and nearly 400 NNSA federal employees will continue to work to support the protection of property and the safety of human life. NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation remains funded through October 27, 2025.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, the spokesperson said, “will be in Las Vegas, Nevada and at the National Nuclear Security Site Monday to further discuss the impacts of the shutdown on America’s nuclear deterrent.”

During past shutdowns federal employees that must keep working as well as those placed on furlough have received back pay. But Trump and administration officials have signaled they may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that authorized back pay for all federal workers once Congress passes a funding bill and the government reopens. 

A sign on the entrance to the U.S. National Arboretum is seen as it is closed due to the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Wednesday, blocking the Trump administration from moving forward with the thousands of layoffs it initiated after the government shutdown began Oct. 1, as well as any others that officials might want to carry out.  

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California took place at the same time White House budget director Russ Vought appeared on the conservative Charlie Kirk podcast to preview his next steps.

Vought warned the initial Reductions in Force, the technical term for a layoff notice, were just “a snapshot” and that as many as 10,000 federal workers would lose their jobs if the shutdown drags on.

“We’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout this shutdown because we think it’s important to stay on offense for the American taxpayer and the American people,” Vought said. “We want to be very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding, but the bureaucracy.”

Judge Susan Illston said during the hearing that she granted the temporary restraining order because Trump administration officials had “taken advantage of the lapse in government spending, government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore and that they can impose the structures that they like on the government situation that they don’t like.” 

Illston said laws and regulations still apply during a shutdown and that, by all appearances, the Trump administration’s actions in the case are politically motivated. 

“Things are being done before they’re thought through — very much ready, fire, aim,” Illston said.

The ruling will put the approximately 4,000 layoffs noticed during the shutdown on hold as the court case proceeds. 

DOJ unprepared to speak on merits of case

Elizabeth Hedges, a Justice Department attorney arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration, said several times during the brief hearing she wasn’t prepared to speak about the merits of the case — a position that confounded the judge, who gave Hedges several chances to reverse course.  

“We may be able to address the merits at the next stage,” Hedges said, after telling Illston she would need to check with others before making any statements about why the administration believes its actions are legal. 

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the labor unions that brought the lawsuit, urged the judge to grant a temporary restraining order for all the departments and agencies that make up the executive branch, not just those that have announced RIFs.

Leonard said she believes Trump administration officials have decided how many additional federal employees to lay off during the shutdown, but have opted not to share that information with the court.

“The decision has been made, it’s just a question of implementation and timing,” Leonard said, around the same time Vought was giving his podcast interview. 

Illston, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, said at the end of the hearing she expected the attorneys to find a day in the coming weeks when they can attend a hearing on the next stage, which would be a preliminary injunction.

Senate deadlocks for ninth time

On the other side of the country, Republicans and Democrats continued to spar on Capitol Hill over the reasons for the shutdown, as the Senate failed for a ninth time to advance a short-term government spending bill. 

The 51-44 vote was nearly identical to the others that have taken place since mid-September, and neither side appeared inclined to make concessions or even try to negotiate. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Democrats maintain there must be a bipartisan deal to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year for people who get their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

GOP leaders said they are willing to begin negotiations on that issue, but only after Democrats vote to advance the stopgap bill that would fund government through Nov. 21. 

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve the legislation in mid-September, but it has remained stalled in the Senate ever since, unable to garner the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage. Republicans control the chamber with 53 seats.

Congress needs to approve the stopgap bill since it, once again, failed to approve all 12 of the full-year government funding bills by the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year.

The only other way to end the funding lapse would be for both chambers to reach a broadly bipartisan consensus on all of those appropriations bills. 

Layoffs across agencies

The layoffs initiated by the Trump administration during the shutdown were detailed further on Tuesday in court filings from the labor unions’ attorneys as well as Trump administration officials.  

Stephen Billy, senior adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, wrote the number of layoff notices had changed since Friday when he outlined the Reductions in Force to the court.

The numbers have fluctuated significantly for some departments, but not for all. 

• Commerce: Approximately 600 employees, up from 315
• Education: Remained at 466 employees
• Health and Human Services: 982 employees, down from a range of 1,100 to 1,200
• Housing and Urban Development: Stayed at 442 employees
• Homeland Security: Decreased to 54 from 176 employees
• Treasury: Reduced somewhat to 1,377 employees, from 1,446 

Energy, EPA layoffs

Federal workers at those departments have 60 days between when the notice was sent and when they will no longer have jobs, though a different standard is in place at the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Energy officials, the document says, “issued a general RIF notice informing 179 employees that they may receive a specific notice in the future if it is determined they will be part of any RIF. If so, that notice would provide the relevant notice period.”

But a spokesperson for the Energy Department emailed States Newsroom on Tuesday evening to confirm officials had issued RIF notices to workers in the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Clean Energy Demonstrations, State and Community Energy Programs and Minority Economic Impact.

“All these offices played a major role in the Biden administration’s war on American Energy,” the spokesperson wrote. “They oversaw billions of dollars in wasteful spending and massive regulatory overreach, resulting in more expensive and less reliable energy. These offices are being realigned to reflect the Trump administration’s commitment to advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the American people and a more responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

Further confusing the situation at the Energy Department, a footnote in the court document filed by Billy said that particular agency isn’t actually experiencing a lapse in funding. 

The Billy court document said EPA officials sent 28 employees “intent to RIF” notices and will send formal RIF notices “to any affected employees at least 60 days prior to the effective date.” 

A separate document, filed by Thomas J. Nagy Jr., deputy assistant secretary for Human Resources at HHS, said “data discrepancies and processing errors” led to 1,760 employees receiving layoff notices instead of the intended 982.

“Employees have been working since October 10, 2025, to rescind the notices that had been issued in error,” Nagy wrote. 

At CDC, ‘eliminating entire offices’

Yolanda Jacobs, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, wrote in a brief to the court that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “issued RIF notices to approximately 1,300 employees, eliminating entire offices at the agency. Then, within 24 hours, the CDC rescinded approximately 700 of those RIF notices.” 

Jacobs wrote the 600 CDC workers who received RIFs will officially lose their jobs on Dec. 8, even though they have already lost access to work email and computers. 

“Many Union members have told me that they are experiencing serious mental health problems and have found it very difficult to get their work done, given all of the turmoil that they have experienced this year,” Jacobs wrote, referencing previous RIF notices and reinstatements. “Members have told me that they worry on a day-to-day basis about whether they will have a job the next day. They said that they have felt like the Trump Administration has been using them as bargaining chips this year.”

Jacobs wrote that the Trump administration has decided to lay off many human resources workers, which had blocked other workers who received RIFs from being able to get information about how to roll over their health insurance coverage. 

During past RIFs, she wrote, workers had “access to the employment records, including paystubs and performance records, that they need for processing their separations,” but cannot since they are locked out of computer systems. 

Layoffs hit Department of Education

Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, which represents nearly 3,000 Education Department workers, wrote in a separate filing the layoffs will impact numerous programs, including civil rights, communications and outreach, elementary and secondary education, post secondary education, and special education and rehabilitative services.

“Receiving RIF notices has caused many employees enormous stress. A father of two young boys contacted me—he just moved into a new home and relies on his job to support his family,” Gittleman wrote. “He told me (he) doesn’t know what he will do next.”

Workers on maternity or disability leave also received layoff notices, “forcing them to job-hunt and face financial insecurity while managing newborns or health conditions,” she wrote. 

Following past RIF notices, the department provided “career transitioning and counseling, benefits and retirement training, and access to other human resources and employee assistance programs.” But Gittleman wrote that isn’t happening this time. 

‘Devastated’ HUD employees

Ashaki Robinson, regional vice president for AFGE Council 222, which represents nearly 5,000 HUD workers, said the layoff notices for that department will impact employees in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Texas and Washington, D.C., who manage a variety of programs. 

“They are devastated that the RIF is happening and are very concerned about losing their incomes, health insurance coverage for themselves and dependents, and other employment benefits in 60 days, when they will be separated from employment,” Robinson wrote. 

The hundreds of HUD workers who have received RIF notices, she wrote, were “targeted for termination not because of anything they did themselves, but because of decisions made by elected officials that may have been driven by politics.”

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.