Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

Oregon has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after 200 members of the Oregon National Guard were deployed under federal authority to Portland.

Some shit you should know before you dig in: Over the weekend, President Trump announced a federal deployment to Portland, citing what he described as escalating lawlessness and violent threats against federal property, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. For weeks, Trump had been publicly criticizing Portland as a city in decline, calling it “war ravaged” and “under siege” by Antifa and other so-called domestic terrorists. He pointed to ongoing standoffs between protesters and law enforcement near federal buildings, as well as intermittent clashes that stretched late into the night, as justification for a stronger federal response. In addition to activating the National Guard under federal authority, the Trump administration also directed the Department of Justice to deploy federal officers to Portland and ramped up federal security at ICE facilities nationwide.

What’s going on now: In a notable development, Oregon’s top leaders responded to the federal deployment by filing a lawsuit in US District Court in Portland, arguing that President Trump’s decision to federalize the state’s National Guard violates both constitutional and statutory limits on executive power. The lawsuit, brought by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, names Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as defendants. It claims that the deployment lacks a legitimate legal basis, infringes on Oregon’s sovereignty, and is a politically motivated overreach.

At the center of the case is the state’s claim that Trump’s use of Title 10 authority (normally reserved for national emergencies or wartime) has been misapplied to justify military involvement in what local officials say is a manageable law enforcement matter. The complaint notes that Oregon did not request federal assistance and that no insurrection, domestic uprising, or large-scale civil disorder exists to warrant the use of military personnel. State leaders argue that crime in Portland has decreased significantly in recent months, with violent incidents near the ICE facility being sporadic and relatively contained.

According to the suit, protests have typically involved only dozens of demonstrators, and the characterization of Portland as “under siege” is not supported by current data or on-the-ground conditions. Oregon’s legal team cites a recent ruling from a federal judge in California, who found that a similar Trump-era deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles was unlawful. The state has also filed for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to immediately halt the deployment, arguing that the presence of federalized troops will escalate tensions, infringe on civil liberties, and reduce public safety rather than enhance it.

This all comes as the Trump administration continues to escalate its federal response to what it describes as ongoing threats to national security and public order in Democrat-led cities. Officials maintain that the deployment of the Oregon National Guard is consistent with the president’s lawful authority to protect federal facilities, particularly in light of recent protests targeting ICE buildings. According to a memorandum from the Department of Defense, the 200 troops will be under federal control for 60 days and operate independently of state leadership, specifically under the command of US Northern Command.