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.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi aimed heated rhetoric at Democratic senators on Capitol Hill Tuesday as she faced questions over the administration’s surge of federal agents to blue cities, as well as a litany of controversial issues surrounding the Department of Justice. 

In one fervid exchange during the routine oversight hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Bondi lashed out at Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, “I wish you’d love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

“And currently the National Guard are on the way to Chicago — if you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will,” Bondi continued, responding to a question from Durbin on whether she had any conversations with the administration ahead of a deployment of the National Guard to Chicago.

“And by the way so is (FBI) Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. You’re sitting here grilling me, and they’re on their way to Chicago to keep your state safe,” Bondi said.

“Madam Attorney General, it’s my job to grill you,” Durbin responded.

Battles with states

Bondi’s hearing occurred after a whirlwind weekend of back-and-forth between a federal judge and the Trump administration over whether National Guard troops could be sent to Portland, Oregon, and were necessary to protect federal law enforcement engaged with Immigration and Custom Enforcement protesters.

Illinois is now locked in a legal battle to block troops from coming to Chicago.

Chicago is a month into a federal crackdown. One of the most high-profile raids occurred in the city’s South Shore neighborhood on Sept. 30 when dozens of federal agents, including from the FBI, overran a five-story apartment building with helicopters and flashbangs, ziptying adults and children, and detaining some U.S. citizens, according to multiple media reports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a highly produced video of the raid on social media.

Bondi’s voice grew hoarse during the hearing as she defended the administration’s campaign to arrest “countless” immigrants she described as “illegal aliens.”

The attorney general was combative with Democratic senators throughout nearly five hours of questioning — telling Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, “Don’t you ever challenge my integrity” when he asked about DOJ’s recently dismissed antitrust lawsuit against American Express. 

Bondi later accused Sen. Mazie Hirono of supporting the loose political ideology antifa — which the White House is targeting as a cohesive body — when the Hawaii Democrat questioned a range of issues, including the department’s alleged consideration of a compensation fund for pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Tom Homan troubles aired

A laundry list of controversial incidents trailed Bondi into the committee room for the oversight hearing — including revelations of FBI agents handing $50,000 in a restaurant takeout bag to Tom Homan, Trump ally and now White House border czar, ahead of the November 2024 election in exchange for false government contracts.

Bondi declined to answer Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse when he asked, “What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered evidently in a paper bag to Mr. Homan?” 

Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, and other Democratic senators asked if Homan kept the money and if he claimed it on his income tax return.

“The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI and the DOJ. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing,” Bondi said.

She then accused Whitehouse of corruption and accepting “dark money.”

“The questions here are actually pretty specific, so having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points is really not very helpful,” Whitehouse said.

Comey indictment directed by Trump

Lawmakers from both parties volleyed accusations of the department’s “weaponization” against the previous and current administrations. 

Bondi’s appearance came less than two weeks after a grand jury returned an indictment of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey. The indictment swiftly followed the administration’s ouster of interim U.S. Attorney Erik Seibert in Virginia after he resisted bringing charges against Comey and New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James. The administration replaced Seibert with President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan. 

Days before the Comey indictment, Trump directly appealed to Bondi as “Pam” on his social media platform Truth Social: “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”

Schiff, a California Democrat, sits on the Judiciary Committee. Late in the hearing, Bondi suggested Schiff should “apologize” to Trump for his past efforts in impeachment proceedings during the president’s first term. Bondi also attacked Schiff as a “failed lawyer.”

Grassley Jan. 6 disclosure

Republicans seethed during the hearing at Monday’s disclosure by Committee Chair Chuck Grassley that FBI agents analyzed data on more than half a dozen Republican lawmakers’ phones during their 2023 investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The FBI allegedly sought data from the days surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack from the phones of Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. 

Hawley likened the investigation of his colleagues’ phones to a “witch hunt” and called for a special prosecutor to “get to the bottom of” alleged Department of Justice activities under former President Joe Biden.

“I find this breathtaking,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

At Kennedy’s urging, Grassley of Iowa said his staff is conducting an investigation of the possible collection of phone data and that he may schedule a separate hearing on the matter.

Trump responded to the disclosure Tuesday morning on Truth Social: “Deranged Jack Smith got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A real sleazebag!!!” 

Bondi also faced scrutiny from Democratic senators who rehashed her promises to release information on the federal probe of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, only to be followed by an FBI memo denying the release of any further case files.

A bipartisan effort is underway in the U.S. House to compel the release of the government’s investigative materials.

A few dozen protestors and reporters gathered outside an immigration enforcement facility in Broadview on Saturday, Oct. 4. The facility has become a focal point of protest since ICE officials expanded their immigration enforcement in Chicagoland. (Capitol News Illinois photo by Andrew Adams)

CHICAGO — After weeks of threatening to do so, President Donald Trump is taking command of 300 Illinois National Guard troops and sending them to Chicago over Gov. JB Pritzker’s objections, the governor announced Saturday.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”

The promised deployment comes as federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, activity has ramped up in Chicago and its suburbs as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests according to the Department of Homeland Security.

There have also been two shootings, including one Saturday on the city’s Southwest Side.

Though the Trump administration insists ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds, reports have mounted of agents arresting those with no history of illegal activity, detaining children along with their parents and even handcuffing U.S. citizens. Immigrant and civil rights groups have alleged ICE is arresting people without warrants in violation of a federal consent decree.

The wave of raids and arrests has spurred large protests in recent weeks, especially outside of an ICE processing center in Broadview, a suburb eight miles west of Chicago. The demonstrations have spurred clashes between immigration agents and activists, leading to the arrests of several protestors last weekend on charges of resisting and assaulting officers. Agents have sprayed chemical agents and fired nonlethal rounds into the crowds outside the facility.

---

---

On Monday, Pritzker announced DHS was seeking 100 Illinois National Guard troops to protect ICE facilities and immigration agents in Illinois, warning the Trump administration would use any confrontation resulting from its Chicago-area immigration crackdown as a “pretext” for a military deployment.

On Saturday, the governor called the administration’s National Guard activation a ”manufactured performance” and not about protecting public safety.

“I want to be clear: there is no need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois,“ Pritzker said, pointing to the Illinois State Police’s announcement this week that it had joined forces with Broadview Police and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to form a “Unified Command” to coordinate law enforcement activity outside the ICE facility.

One of ISP’s first acts in Broadview was designating demonstration areas, also known as “free speech zones.” Pritzker on Saturday said the combined efforts of state and local law enforcement protected “people’s ability to peacefully exercise their constitutional rights.”

The Unified Command reported the arrests of at least five protesters on Friday, and five more on Saturday night, as of 8 p.m. The area was quiet Saturday afternoon with only about a dozen protesters gathered, at times outnumbered by members of the media.

---

---

“I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people,” the governor said in his statement.

But shortly before Pritzker’s announcement about the National Guard deployment Saturday, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot a woman in an altercation between immigration agents and protesters on Chicago’s Southwest Side.

According to reporting from the Chicago Sun-Times, the woman was alleged to have been driving one of 10 cars that “rammed” and “boxed in” nearly three dozen immigration agents in the city’s Brighton Park neighborhood. Agents fired “defensive shots” when they saw the woman was allegedly “armed with a semi-automatic weapon,” according to the paper. She was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The woman was one of two people charged by federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois with using their vehicles to “assault, impede, and interfere with the work of federal agents in Chicago.”

Trump and Pritzker have spent weeks trading barbs over the president’s threats to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, with the governor alleging Trump’s apparent backing off from the idea last month was a sign of dementia.

The governor has already vowed legal action against the Trump administration if and when the president activated the National Guard. After the president sent 1,400 National Guard troops to Los Angeles this summer — the first time since the 1960s that the feds deployed the National Guard without a governor’s consent — a federal judge last month ruled the move violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of the federal government to use military force for domestic matters. But the ruling only applies to California.

The National Guard’s presence in Los Angeles has dwindled to roughly 250, but there are still a couple thousand troops on assignment in Washington, D.C., where the federal government has more power over law enforcement. Since their August deployment to the nation’s capital, guardsmen have been reportedly picking up garbage, as they are only authorized to assist with arrests if asked by local law enforcement.

Trump has also threatened to federalize the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, though troops had not yet been sent as of Saturday evening. Tennessee’s Republican governor has welcomed the president’s recent suggestion that he’d deploy guardsmen to Memphis, but that has also yet to happen.

Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Washington, D.C. and Shelby County, Tennessee, where Memphis is situated, have all adopted so-called “sanctuary city” policies wherein local law enforcement are barred from assisting in federal immigration enforcement. Trump has targeted cities and states that have adopted such laws, and last week a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled the administration cannot withhold emergency funding from Illinois and other states based on those states’ refusal to participate in immigration enforcement.

But this week, Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he learned of another attempt by the White House to divert disaster relief funding from Illinois with four days remaining in the fiscal year “without any notice or explanation.”

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem visited Illinois again on Friday. Noem has traveled to the Chicago area and Springfield several times this year, including last month when she oversaw an early morning raid in Elgin, where at least one U.S. citizen was arrested.

“Secretary Noem should no longer be able to step foot inside the State of Illinois without any form of public accountability,” Pritzker said in a statement.

On Friday, Noem appeared with Gregory Bovino, commander-at-large of the U.S. Border Patrol, at the Broadview ICE facility with a camera crew, according to Chicago’s ABC 7.

Late Friday, Pritzker also said he’s making state resources available to people affected by a Sept. 30 raid on a South Shore apartment building.

In Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood, masked federal agents deployed a chemical irritant outside of a grocery store as people and cars lined up to block their advancement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

State Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado, D-Chicago, condemned the action, which happened around the corner from an elementary school in her district. Chicago Ald. Jessie Fuentes also alleges she was handcuffed by immigration agents while questioning them at a Humboldt Park medical center.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

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.