Lawsuit over Trump’s National Guard deployments deepens as states split 23–22
A lawsuit over President Trump’s federalization of state National Guard forces — filed by Washington’s attorney general and now backed by 23 states while opposed by 22 — has spawned parallel legal fights in Oregon, Illinois and elsewhere as governors and cities seek to block cross‑state troop movements. U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut has issued temporary restraining orders barring deployments to Portland (expanded to out‑of‑state Guard and set to expire Oct. 18), the administration has appealed and moved federalized troops from California and Texas to Oregon and Chicago, and the White House has signaled it may press its authority, even invoking the Insurrection Act, as the courts decide.
Military
Politics
International
National Security
Legal
Public Safety
📌 Key Facts
- U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, broadly finding the president lacked a “colorable basis” under Title 10 §12406(3), calling the determination “untethered to the facts” and writing “this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law”; the TRO is set to expire Oct. 18, 2025, and the White House filed an emergency appeal to the 9th Circuit.
- Despite the TRO, the Pentagon and the White House confirmed federalized California National Guard members were moved toward Oregon — Pentagon statements cited about 200 troops reassigned, Gov. Gavin Newsom said roughly 101 arrived overnight and that 300 had been federalized — and Newsom said he plans to sue; the administration said the deployments were to protect federal facilities and personnel.
- The administration also federalized or mobilized troops for Chicago: reporting included roughly 200 Texas Guard soldiers expected to be sent to Illinois, a memo saying up to 400 Texas troops could be activated for Oregon and Illinois, and about 300 Illinois Guard personnel cited for federalization; Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit to block those deployments, and a judge scheduled hearings and urged the administration to pause operations.
- Legal and statutory questions are central: the administration relied on an obscure Title 10 provision (cited as §12406) rather than immediately invoking the Insurrection Act, while President Trump publicly said he might invoke the Insurrection Act if courts or local officials blocked deployments and “people were being killed.”
- The dispute has deepened into a partisan, interstate legal fight: briefs and filings show 23 states backing the administration’s authority and 22 states joining Washington in opposing the federal deployments; governors and state attorneys general have threatened further litigation and political responses, and key hearings are being scheduled (including oral argument in the Washington case on Oct. 24, 2025).
- Judicial orders and enforcement have been tightened after the administration tried to substitute out-of-state troops (California, then Texas) — Judge Immergut broadened her earlier order to bar use of Guard forces from any other state to deploy to Oregon and cited possible violations of 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment.
- Civil‑liberties and local government actions have multiplied: the ACLU of Illinois and media organizations sued over alleged indiscriminate force by federal agents near the Broadview ICE facility; Chicago’s mayor signed an order barring federal immigration agents from using city property as staging areas and the city imposed other curbs to limit federal operations.
- The standoff has been accompanied by escalatory rhetoric: White House officials and allies (including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and some conservative influencers) publicly attacked federal judges and urged resistance to court limits, while White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson made disparaging public remarks about Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker; DOJ lawyers defended the deployments in court.
📊 Analysis & Commentary (1)
Shock and ORE
"Politico’s Playbook argues the federal court block on the administration’s move to federalize Guard troops in Oregon is a crucial check on an unprecedented effort to normalize domestic military deployments, warns of dangerous constitutional and political consequences if allowed to stand, and notes Democrats face a messaging vulnerability on public safety even as governors and judges push back."
📰 Sources (31)
Anxiety grows in Portland amid Trump's effort to send in National Guard
New information:
- Appellate court action specific to Oregon: Guard may remain federalized but cannot deploy to Portland pending litigation.
- Details that a subsequent TRO also blocked deployment of additional California Guard to Oregon.
Lawsuit against Trump’s Washington National Guard deployment exposes country’s deep partisan divide
New information:
- The Washington AG’s lawsuit was filed Sept. 4, 2025 (Brian Schwalb is the named filer).
- Twenty‑three states filed in support of the Trump administration’s authority while 22 states joined Washington opposing the deployment.
- Oral arguments in the Washington lawsuit are scheduled for Oct. 24, 2025, and hundreds of Guard troops remain in the city despite the emergency order having lapsed.
How Trump could use the Insurrection Act to send troops to American cities
New information:
- Direct Oval Office quotes from President Trump saying, "we have an Insurrection Act for a reason" and that he would use it 'if people were being killed' and courts or local officials were blocking deployments.
- Citation of the Brennan Center for Justice warning the Insurrection Act grants 'limitless discretion' and has not been meaningfully updated in ~150 years.
- Explicit framing that invoking the Insurrection Act could be used to bypass recent judicial blocks on deployments (e.g., courts slowing or stopping Guard use).
- Restatement that a federal judge ruled in early September that Trump's use of the National Guard in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act (legal precedent context included).
Illinois braces for possible National Guard arrival while lawsuit challenging deployment simmers
New information:
- Article cites specific troop counts: roughly 300 Illinois Guard troops to be federalized and 400 from Texas.
- A federal judge gave the administration two days to respond and set a hearing for Thursday.
- Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order barring federal immigration agents from using city‑owned property (parking lots, garages, vacant lots) as staging areas.
- ACLU of Illinois has filed a related lawsuit accusing the federal government of a campaign of violence and intimidation at protests near the Broadview ICE facility.
- DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin formally responded, saying the First Amendment protects peaceful assembly but 'not rioting.'
Illinois aims to stop Trump from sending National Guard troops to Chicago
New information:
- Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a lawsuit seeking to stop National Guard members from Texas and other states being sent to Chicago.
- The legal action is presented as a response to recent protests over immigration raids and claims of excessive force by federal agents.
Here’s the latest.
New information:
- About 200 Texas National Guard troops were expected to be part of the Illinois deployment.
- A judge declined to immediately block the Illinois deployment and scheduled a hearing for Thursday.
- A military official said the Texas troops were expected to begin operations no sooner than Wednesday (Oct. 8, 2025).
- Governors J.B. Pritzker and Gavin Newsom threatened to withdraw from the National Governors Association if it does not denounce cross‑state Guard deployments.
- Broadview, Ill., imposed a daylight curfew on protests to 'protect demonstrators from attacks by federal agents.'
War in Gaza moves into its third year. And, Trump's power to deploy the National Guard
New information:
- NPR reports Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted a photo of Texas National Guard troops 'deploying now' (image of troops boarding a military plane).
- NPR identifies the administration's cited statutory basis as Section 12‑406 of Title 10 (an obscure provision) rather than invoking the Insurrection Act.
- NPR notes contemporaneous coverage that the Supreme Court is hearing a conversion‑therapy case and frames the Gaza war's second‑anniversary context alongside deployment debate.
Illinois AG responds to Trump's push to send National Guard to Chicago
New information:
- On‑the‑record interview with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul responding to President Trump's push to send National Guard forces to Chicago.
- Interview includes commentary from a former Illinois National Guard official describing efforts to deploy troops to Chicago amid state and local objections.
Trump ramps up pressure on judges as he deploys more troops in US
New information:
- White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller publicly called the initial district‑court ruling a 'legal insurrection' on X and asserted a district judge cannot limit the President’s authority to dispatch military forces.
- Report that after Judge Karin Immergut blocked federalization of Oregon’s Guard, the administration attempted to call up California National Guard troops and the judge said that move was 'in direct contravention' of her earlier decision.
- Illinois and the City of Chicago filed a lawsuit seeking to block deployments of Texas and Illinois National Guard troops to their state; a federal judge declined to immediately block the deployment but urged the administration to 'strongly consider taking a pause' until a Thursday hearing.
Trump's power to deploy National Guard, explained
New information:
- Clear, plain-language explainer of the three National Guard status categories: state active duty, Title 32 (state command, federal funding), and Title 10 (federal command and funding).
- Notes that Illinois and the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the deployments and that a federal judge in Illinois declined an immediate block (itemized legal actions referenced).
- Quotes Elizabeth Goitein (Brennan Center) saying the president's use of Title 10 'hasn't been used in this way before,' contextualizing legal precedent.
Trump floats Insurrection Act use amid National Guard standoff with states
New information:
- White House quote (Oct. 7): direct Trump remark saying he might invoke the Insurrection Act if courts or local officials hold up deployments and 'people were being killed'.
- Reports that Illinois filed a lawsuit Monday after the administration said it would send 300 Guard members to Chicago.
- Reiteration that a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the planned Guard deployment there Sunday evening (second such block).
Trump Said He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops. Here’s What to Know.
New information:
- President Donald Trump publicly said on Oct. 6, 2025 he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act and gave specific conditions that might justify it (e.g., 'if people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or mayors or governors were holding us up').
- The article quotes Trump calling Judge Karin Immergut as having 'lost her way' after she broadened a restraining order blocking out‑of‑state National Guard deployments to Oregon.
- Contextual detail: the Insurrection Act dates to 1807 and 'has not been invoked for more than 30 years,' highlighting the historical rarity and civil‑liberties implications of such a move.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek says Portland "is not a warzone" as Trump pushes to deploy National Guard
New information:
- Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek told CBS News in an on‑camera interview that 'Portland is not a warzone.'
- The CBS piece frames the quote in the context of the ongoing legal showdown after a federal judge blocked the president from sending troops to Oregon over the weekend.
Oregon governor calls Trump’s actions ‘an abuse of power and threat to our democracy’
New information:
- Direct on‑camera interview/quote from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek calling the federal actions 'an abuse of power and threat to our democracy.'
- PBS reports Illinois has sued to stop plans to send roughly 400 Texas National Guard troops (confirming and foregrounding the interstate legal challenge in national coverage).
- PBS NewsHour segment includes Gov. Kotek's perspective as an affected state executive, adding an explicit gubernatorial denunciation to prior legal/operational coverage.
Fox News Politics Newsletter: White House slams ‘slob’ Pritzker after National Guard rejection
New information:
- White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson publicly called Gov. J.B. Pritzker a 'slob' after he rejected the administration's National Guard deployment ultimatum.
- Fox News Digital published the administration's quoted language mocking Pritzker and printing the exchange in a newsletter item, adding a direct White House insult to the public record of the dispute.
MAGA calls for Trump to overrule judges on National Guard deployments
New information:
- Public calls from MAGA influencers and conservative media figures urging the White House and President Trump to openly defy federal judges over National Guard deployments.
- Direct quotes and named political actors: Matt Walsh and Laura Loomer publicly urged defiance; Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said district court rulings have been 'flagrantly unlawful and unconstitutional.'
- White House rhetoric described as increasingly hostile toward the judiciary even as officials say they will abide by rulings while appealing.
Trump Says Portland Is ‘Burning.’ Here’s What Crime Is Really Like.
New information:
- The New York Times reports that about 200 Texas Guard soldiers were moving to Chicago (specific troop count reported).
- The administration filed an emergency appeal seeking a stay of Judge Karin Immergut’s restraining order.
- Reporting documents that Portland demonstrations 'rarely numbered more than two dozen' before the president's deployment announcement and that clashes grew more violent after the announcement.
- Judge Immergut broadened her earlier order to cover Guard troops from any state after the administration attempted to substitute Texas for California troops.
Where things stand with federal law enforcement in Chicago and Portland
New information:
- AP/PBS piece highlights that the ACLU of Illinois filed a suit alongside Illinois/Chicago challenging federal actions.
- A coalition of news outlets and media associations (Illinois Press Association, Block Club Chicago, Chicago Headline Club) filed a separate complaint alleging federal agents used 'indiscriminate' and 'violent force' at the Broadview ICE facility.
- Article states at least seven people have faced federal charges after arrests tied to the Broadview clashes.
- Quotes and context include a White House spokesman confirming authorization and a historical Stephen Miller quote about federalizing Guard forces (Nov. 2023) illustrating policy intent.
Here’s the latest.
New information:
- State of Illinois filed a lawsuit on Oct. 6, 2025 seeking to stop mobilization of National Guard troops to the state and arguing deployments would 'undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry.'
- President Trump ordered 'hundreds' of Texas National Guard troops to deploy for 'federal protection missions' to Chicago and Portland.
- Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he would issue an executive order establishing 'ICE‑free zones' that bar federal immigration staging on city property without a warrant.
Federal judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment to Portland amid constitutional challenge
New information:
- Article names the DOJ attorney (Eric Hamilton) who defended the deployment in court and records Judge Immergut pressing him directly about circumventing her prior TRO.
- Article quotes Immergut questioning the DOJ's continued pursuit of troop movements ('How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention of the TRO that I issued yesterday?').
- Article notes the order bars the use of troops from any other state or Washington, D.C., to be deployed to Oregon and cites the judge's finding that the action 'appears to violate both 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment.'
- Includes Governor Gavin Newsom's immediate public reaction (X post) celebrating the court victory and summarizing the relief granted.
+ 11 more sources