Trump and Oregon’s Lawyers Clash Over National Guard in Portland
In a spirited legal battle on Thursday at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Donald Trump and Oregon’s legal representatives squared off regarding Trump’s initiative to send the National Guard to Portland. Tensions ran high as both sides expressed strong criticisms regarding the legality and necessity of the president’s actions.
The panel of three judges—two appointed by Trump and one by Clinton—seemed doubtful about the arguments made by Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacey Chaffin. She contended that the president’s characterization of the violence in Portland was not only exaggerated but also “out of touch with reality.”
The judges probed Chaffin for specifics on the Portland protests, questioning aspects such as protest dates and arrest numbers. They challenged her to explain why those circumstances didn’t meet the threshold needed to justify the deployment of National Guard troops.
One judge, Ryan Nelson, interrupted Chaffin, asserting, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln could have authorized the use of force right now” under the “stricter standards” Oregon believes should apply.
Chaffin maintained that the events in Portland were far from meeting the legal definition of an “insurrection,” which is one requirement for President Trump to legally deploy the National Guard.
The Ninth Circuit took on the Trump administration’s appeal just days after a federal judge in Oregon issued a temporary restraining order. This order blocked the president from deploying the Oregon National Guard, expressing concern that such a move would “blur the line between civilian and military federal powers.”
Chaffin emphasized that, while there were complaints regarding staffing shortages, those issues didn’t warrant military presence on the streets. “Administrative difficulties are no reason to put troops on the streets of Portland or any other American city,” she argued.
However, during the lengthy oral arguments—lasting about 90 minutes—two judges appointed by Trump expressed a distinctly critical stance towards Oregon’s legal arguments.
Meanwhile, Justice Department attorney Eric D. MacArthur reiterated key points of the administration’s case for deploying the National Guard. He argued that there exists an ongoing threat of “insurrection” and that federal law enforcement cannot operate effectively without National Guard support.
MacArthur pointed out that despite the time gap between Trump’s initial authorization for federalizing the National Guard and the proposed deployment, Portland had met the criteria for constituting an “active threat.”
When asked by Judge Susan Graeber whether President Trump could justify activating the National Guard based on violent incidents occurring “after the fact,” MacArthur replied affirmatively, saying, “Yes.”
“I think we can rely on subsequent evidence to show that there was a factual basis for the president’s decision,” he added, emphasizing the potential risks posed by volatile crowds.
The court has yet to announce when it will deliver its ruling. In the meantime, approximately 200 National Guard troops remain positioned just outside Portland, ready for deployment at a moment’s notice.
This lawsuit is just one of several legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to federalize the National Guard amid significant pushback from state and local officials.
