President Trump just scored a significant legal win as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals greenlit his plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, despite fierce pushback from progressive leaders.
The New York Post reported that the appeals court’s 2-1 ruling on Monday overturned a lower court’s block on the deployment, marking a pivotal moment for the administration’s push to bring federal forces into Democrat-led cities facing unrest.
This saga kicked off earlier in October when a federal judge in Oregon slammed the brakes on Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops to Portland, calling the move a dangerous overreach.
The White House didn’t mince words, accusing that judge of being “untethered to reality” in a sharp rebuke before taking the fight to the appeals court.
That lower court ruling came amid spiraling tensions, with a protest against the deployment erupting outside the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse on Oct. 3, signaling just how divisive this issue has become.
Fast forward to Oct. 12, when federal agents were seen guarding an ICE facility in Portland, only for clashes with anti-ICE protesters to erupt days later on Oct. 18, fueling Trump’s argument for federal intervention.
Enter the 9th Circuit, where a panel of three judges, led by Trump appointees Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, voted 2-1 to strike down one of two temporary restraining orders halting the National Guard’s deployment.
The majority opinion stated, “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3),” which allows federalizing the National Guard when regular forces can’t enforce U.S. laws.
While the court acknowledges the legal basis, let’s be real—handing over such power without clear evidence of misuse feels like giving a blank check, though Judge Nelson himself noted they “didn’t have evidence” of improper use just yet.
Not everyone’s cheering, of course—Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy Chaffin argued that the violence in Portland doesn’t come close to justifying federalizing the National Guard, let alone labeling it a “rebellion” as Trump’s legal pretext requires.
Democrats, too, have been vocal, claiming the president is exaggerating the unrest to push a federal agenda into cities like Portland and Chicago, where state leaders want no part of this plan.
Look, it’s hard to ignore the images of violent anti-ICE protests shaking Portland’s streets, but one has to wonder if federal boots on the ground are the answer or just a political statement.
Portland isn’t the only city in Trump’s crosshairs—similar efforts to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago got a partial nod from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday, though troops there are limited to a nearby Army Reserve base for now.
Meanwhile, Portland’s facing more heat with a civil rights complaint filed on Monday over alleged “race-first” policies, even as the city promised to dial back its diversity, equity, and inclusion focus—talk about a perfect storm of controversy.
At the end of the day, this ruling hands Trump a powerful tool to address unrest as he sees fit, but it also risks deepening the divide between federal authority and local governance, leaving many to question where the line should be drawn.
