In a stunning rebuke to presidential power, a federal judge has slammed the brakes on President Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops from California—and potentially other states—into Oregon. This isn’t just a legal skirmish; it’s a battle for the soul of American democracy. Hours after California Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to fight back, Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order late Sunday, halting Trump’s plan to send 300 California Guard members to Oregon. But here’s where it gets controversial: this isn’t the first time Trump has tried to use military forces in ways that have sparked outrage and legal challenges.
The drama began when Trump dispatched California Guard troops to Oregon earlier on Sunday, prompting officials from both states to seek the restraining order. Newsom didn’t hold back in his response: ‘The rule of law has prevailed—and California’s National Guard will be heading home,’ he declared. ‘This ruling is more than a legal victory; it’s a victory for American democracy itself. Donald Trump tried to turn our soldiers into instruments of his political will, and tonight, the rule of law said, ‘Hell no.’’ Bold words, but they underscore a deeper tension: Is Trump overstepping his authority, or is he simply exercising his duty to protect federal interests?
Judge Immergut’s decision came just a day after she temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to federalize Oregon’s National Guard. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield was blunt: ‘What was unlawful yesterday is unlawful today. The judge’s order was not some minor procedural point for the president to work around, like my 14-year-old does when he doesn’t like my answers.’ And this is the part most people miss: the original court request only targeted California Guard troops, but it was expanded to include any Guard troops after a memo revealed that up to 400 Texas National Guard members were being activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois, and possibly elsewhere.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott doubled down, stating he ‘fully authorized’ the use of Texas Guard troops to ‘ensure safety for federal officials.’ ‘You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,’ he wrote on X. But Judge Immergut wasn’t having it. During the hearing, she grilled the federal government’s attorney, questioning how sending troops from California and Texas to Oregon could be seen as anything but a blatant attempt to circumvent her earlier order.
Constitutional law experts agree. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, called it ‘a blatant attempt to circumvent Judge Immergut’s order.’ ‘Her decision makes very clear that there is no lawful basis for deploying federalized National Guard troops in Oregon,’ she added. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, went further: ‘I cannot think of a historic analog where we have the president—against the will of local elected officials—sending the federalized National Guard from state A to state B.’ This raises a critical question: Are we witnessing an unprecedented expansion of presidential power, or is this a necessary response to escalating unrest?
Trump’s history with the National Guard is contentious. In June, he mobilized the California Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles, a move Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged in a federal lawsuit. Trump has also pursued military interventions in cities like Chicago and Washington, claiming they’re needed to fight crime. Local leaders, however, argue these actions are unnecessary and legally unjustified. ‘The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself,’ Newsom said. ‘This disrespect for the courts cannot stand.’
Adding to the irony? Judge Immergut, who issued the ruling, was appointed by Trump himself during his first term. Yet, she didn’t hesitate to push back. In her Saturday ruling, she noted that the scale of recent protests in Portland didn’t justify federalized forces and that deploying them could infringe on Oregon’s sovereignty. Goitein agreed: ‘What he’s doing is illegal, under her opinion.’
Tensions are particularly high in California. When Trump deployed nearly 2,000 Guard members to Los Angeles in June without Newsom’s consent, local leaders criticized it as an unwarranted escalation. The Los Angeles Times reported that many troops had little to do, with some appearing bored. Days later, Newsom and Bonta sued, and last month, a federal judge ruled Trump’s use of the Guard in L.A. was illegal—though he allowed 300 troops to remain, provided they didn’t enforce civilian laws. Those same 300 troops were rerouted to Portland on Sunday, sparking further outrage.
‘This flagrant disregard for the courts was on full display when the Trump Administration sought to circumvent Judge Immergut’s order,’ Bonta said. Newsom has ramped up his criticism of Trump, even lashing out at universities considering the president’s higher education compact, which ties federal funding to rightward policy shifts. ‘We are losing this country,’ Newsom warned. ‘This is it.’
As the legal battles continue, one thing is clear: this fight isn’t just about troops or protests—it’s about the boundaries of presidential power and the future of American democracy. What do you think? Is Trump overreaching, or is he justified in his actions? Let us know in the comments.
