deployment

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.

A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.

Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.

“Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”

Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.

The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.

Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.

But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.

Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.

“The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”

It also precludes most judicial review.

“It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”

If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.

“The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.

“They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”

In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.

Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.

The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.

As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.

Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.

Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.

“At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.

Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”

The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.

It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.

“The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”

Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.

The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.

Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.

“There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.

Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.

“There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”

That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.

“It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”

He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.

“If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”

At that point, the best defense may come from the military.

“If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — National Guard troops were seen patrolling in Memphis for the first time on Friday, as part of President Trump’s federal task force, which faces multiple legal challenges.

At least nine National Guard troops began their patrol at the Bass Pro Shops located at the Pyramid, an iconic landmark in Memphis. They were being escorted by a Memphis police officer and posed for photos with visitors who were standing outside.

It was unclear how many Guard members were on the ground or were expected to arrive later.

During an NAACP Memphis forum on Wednesday, Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis said she hoped Guard personnel would help direct traffic and have a presence in “retail corridors,” but not be used to operate checkpoints or anything similar.

“From a public safety standpoint, we’re trying to utilize Guard personnel in non-enforcement types of capacities, so it does not feel like there is this over-militarization in our communities, in our neighborhoods, and that’s not where we’re directing those resources, either,” she said.

Memphis Mayor Paul Young, a Democrat, said he never requested that the Guard come to Memphis. But after Trump made the Sept. 15 announcement and Republican Gov. Bill Lee agreed, Young and other officials said they wanted the task force to focus on targeting violent offenders rather than use their presence to scare, harass or intimidate the general public.

For years, Memphis has dealt with high violent crime, including assaults, carjackings and homicides. While this year’s statistics show improvement in several categories, including murders, many acknowledge that violence remains a problem.

Federal officials say hundreds of arrests and more than 2,800 traffic citations have been made since the task force began operating in Memphis on Sept. 29. Arrest categories include active warrants, drugs, firearms and sex offenses, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Four arrests have been made on homicide charges, the Marshals Service said.

An ongoing legal battle

Friday’s development comes day after a federal judge in Illinois blocked the deployment of troops in the Chicago area for at least two weeks.

The on-again, off-again deployments stem from a political and legal battle over President Donald Trump’s push to send the National Guard to several U.S. cities. His administration claims crime is rampant in those cities, despite statistics not always backing that up.

If a president invokes the Insurrection Act, they can dispatch active duty military in states that fail to put down an insurrection or defy federal law, but the judge in Chicago said Thursday she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois during Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The ruling offered a victory for Democratic officials who lead the state and city.

“The court confirmed what we all know: There is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago,” Gov. JB Pritzker said.

The order in Illinois is set to expire Oct. 23 at 11:59 p.m. U.S. District Judge April Perry set an Oct. 22 hearing to determine if it should be extended for another 14 days.

In her ruling, she said the administration violated the 10th Amendment, which grants certain powers to states, and the 14th Amendment, which assures due process and equal protection.

It wasn’t clear what the 500 Guard members from Texas and Illinois would do next. They were mostly stationed at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, southwest of Chicago. A small number on Thursday were outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Broadview, which for weeks has been home to occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents.

Officials at U.S. Northern Command directed questions to the Department of Defense, which cited its policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation. The troops are under the U.S. Northern Command and had been activated for 60 days.

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton said Thursday that the Guard’s mission would be to protect federal properties and government law enforcers in the field, not “solving all of crime in Chicago.”

The city and state have called the deployments unnecessary and illegal.

Deployment in Portland remains on hold

A federal appeals court heard arguments on Thursday over whether Trump had the authority to take control of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. The president had planned to deploy them in Portland, where there have been mostly small nightly protests outside an ICE building.

A judge last Sunday granted a temporary restraining order blocking the move. Trump had mobilized California troops for Portland just hours after the judge first blocked him from using Oregon’s Guard.

Two dozen other states with a Democratic attorney general or governor signed a court filing in support of the legal challenge by California and Oregon. Twenty others, led by Iowa, backed the Trump administration.

The president previously sent troops to Los Angeles and Washington.

In a California case, a judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained and the judge did not order them to leave.

Sainz writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Ed White in Detroit, Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia, Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tenn., and Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to this report.

Illinois urged a judge Thursday to order the National Guard to stand down in the Chicago area, calling the deployment a constitutional crisis and suggesting the Trump administration gave no heed to the pending legal challenge when it sent troops overnight to an immigration enforcement building.

The government “plowed ahead anyway,” attorney Christopher Wells of the state attorney general office said. “Now, troops are here.”

Wells’ arguments opened an extraordinary hearing in federal court in Chicago. The city and the state, run by Democratic elected leaders, say President Trump has vastly exceeded his authority and ignored their pleas to keep the Guard off the streets.

Heavy public turnout at the downtown courthouse caused officials to open an overflow room with a video feed of the hearing. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson got a seat in a corner of the courtroom.

Feds say Guard won’t solve all crime

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton said the Chicago area was rife with “tragic lawlessness.” He pointed to an incident last weekend in which a Border Patrol vehicle was boxed in and an agent shot a woman in response.

“Chicago is seeing a brazen new form of hostility from rioters targeting federal law enforcement,” Hamilton said. “They’re not protesters. There is enough that there is a danger of a rebellion here, which there is.”

He said some people were wearing gas masks, a suggestion they were poised for a fight, but U.S. District Judge April Perry countered it might be justified to avoid tear gas at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Broadview, outside Chicago.

“I, too, would wear a gas mask,” the judge said, “not because I’m trying to be violent but because I’m trying to protect myself.”

Hamilton also tried to narrow the issues. He said the Guard’s mission would be to protect federal properties and government law enforcers in the field — not “solving all of crime in Chicago.”

Guard on the ground at ICE site

Guard members from Texas and Illinois arrived this week at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, southwest of Chicago. All 500 are under the U.S. Northern Command and have been activated for 60 days.

Some Guard troops could be seen behind portable fences at the Broadview ICE building. It has been the site of occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents, but the scene was peaceful, with few people present.

Wells, the lawyer for Illinois, described the impact of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Chicago, noting that U.S. citizens have been temporarily detained. He acknowledged the “president does have the power, and he’s using that power.”

“But that power is not unlimited,” Wells added, referring to the Guard deployment. “And this court can check that power.”

Perry told the parties to return to court late Thursday afternoon.

Guard on court docket elsewhere

Also Thursday, a federal appeals court heard arguments over whether Trump had the authority to take control of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. The president had planned to deploy them in Portland, where there have been mostly small nightly protests outside an ICE building.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Sunday granted a temporary restraining order blocking the move. Trump had mobilized California troops for Portland just hours after the judge first blocked him from using Oregon’s Guard.

Two dozen other states with a Democratic attorney general or governor signed a court filing in support of the legal challenge by California and Oregon. Twenty others, led by Iowa, backed the Trump administration.

The nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.

Troops used in other states

Trump previously sent troops to Los Angeles and Washington. In Memphis, Tenn., Mayor Paul Young said troops would begin patrolling Friday. Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee supports the role.

Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis said she hoped the Guard would be used to direct traffic and have a presence in retail corridors, but not used for checkpoints or similar activities.

Davis said she doesn’t want Memphis to “feel like there is this over-militarization in our communities.”

The Trump administration’s aggressive use of the Guard was challenged this summer in California, which won and lost a series of court decisions while opposing the policy of putting troops in Los Angeles, where they protected federal buildings and immigration agents.

A judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained on the ground. The judge did not order them to leave. The government later took steps to send them to Oregon.

Fernando and Thanawala write for the Associated Press. AP writers Ed White in Detroit, Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia and Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tenn., contributed to this report.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to recognize President Trump’s authority to send soldiers to Portland, Ore., with members of the court signaling receptiveness to an expansive new read of the president’s power to put boots on the ground in American cities.

A three-judge panel from the appellate court — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — heard oral arguments Thursday after Oregon challenged the legality of the president’s order to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Portland. The administration claims the city has become lawless; Oregon officials argue Trump is manufacturing a crisis to justify calling in the National Guard.

While the court has not issued a decision, a ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a sharp rightward turn for the once-liberal circuit — and probably set up a Supreme Court showdown over why and how the U.S. military can be used domestically.

“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of ‘executing the laws’ is right or wrong,” said Judge Ryan D. Nelson of Idaho Falls, Idaho, one of the two Trump appointees hearing the arguments.

“That’s an internal decision making, and whether there’s a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her temporary restraining on Oct. 4.

The facts about the situation on the ground in Portland were not in dispute at the hearing on Thursday. The city has remained mostly calm in recent months, with protesters occasionally engaging in brief skirmishes with authorities stationed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

Instead, Nelson and Judge Bridget S. Bade of Phoenix, whom Trump once floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, questioned how much the facts mattered.

“The president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come and say, ‘No you need to do it differently,’” Nelson said.

He also appeared to endorse the Department of Justice’s claim that “penalizing” the president for waiting until protests had calmed to deploy soldiers to quell them created a perverse incentive to act first and ask questions later.

“It just seems like such a tortured reading of the statute,” the judge said. He then referenced the first battle of the U.S. Civil War in 1861, saying, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln would be able to bring in forces when he did, because if he didn’t do it immediately after Fort Sumter, [Oregon’s] argument would be, ‘Oh, things are OK now.’”

Trump’s efforts to use troops to quell protests and support federal immigration operations have led to a growing tangle of legal challenges. The Portland deployment was halted by Immergut, who blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon troops. (A ruling from the same case issued the next day prevents already federalized troops from being deployed.)

In June, a different 9th Circuit panel also made up of two Trump appointees ruled that the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — discretion to determine whether facts on the ground met the threshold for military response in Los Angeles. Thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines were deployed over the summer amid widespread protests over immigration enforcement.

The June decision set precedent for how any future deployment in the circuit’s vast territory can be reviewed. It also sparked outrage, both among those who oppose armed soldiers patrolling American streets and those who support them.

Opponents argue repeated domestic deployments shred America’s social fabric and trample protest rights protected by the 1st Amendment. With soldiers called into action so far in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, many charge the administration is using the military for political purposes.

“The military should not be acting as a domestic police force in this country except in the most extreme circumstances,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “That set of circumstances is not present right now anywhere in the country, so this is an abuse of power — and a very dangerous one because of the precedent it sets.”

Supporters say the president has sole authority to determine the facts on the ground and if they warrant military intervention. They argue any check by the judicial branch is an illegal power grab, aimed at thwarting response to a legitimate and growing “invasion from within.”

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said in an address to military top brass last week. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the Los Angeles case with an 11-member “en banc” panel in Pasadena on Oct. 22, signaling a schism among Trump’s own judges over the boundaries of the president’s power.

Still, Trump’s authority to call soldiers into American cities is only the first piece in a larger legal puzzle spread before the 9th Circuit, experts said.

What federalized troops are allowed to do once deployed is the subject of another court decision now under review. That case could determine whether soldiers are barred from assisting immigration raids, controlling crowds of protesters or any other form of civilian law enforcement.

Trump officials have maintained the president can wield the military as he sees fit — and that cities such as Portland and L.A. would be in danger if soldiers can’t come to the rescue.

“These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said. “The president is entitled to say enough is enough and bring in the National Guard.”

WASHINGTON — Chicago is emerging as the latest testing ground for President Trump’s domestic deployment of military force as hundreds of National Guard troops were expected to descend on the city.

The president said Wednesday that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be jailed for failing to support federal agents, and continued to paint a dark and violent picture of both Chicago and Portland, Ore., where Trump is trying to send federal troops but has so far been stonewalled by the courts.

“It’s so bad,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday. “It’s so crazy. It’s like the movies … where you have these bombed-out cities and these bombed-out people. It’s worse than that. I don’t think they can make a movie as bad.”

Pritzker this week characterized Trump’s depiction of Chicago as “deranged” and untrue. Federal agents are making the community “less safe,” the governor said, noting that residents do not want “Donald Trump to occupy their communities” and that people of color are fearful of being profiled during immigration crackdowns.

Trump has taken issue with Democrats in Illinois and Oregon who are fighting his efforts, and has twice said this week that he is willing to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 if local leaders and the courts try to stop him. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller also contended this week that a court ruling blocking Trump’s deployments to Portland amounted to a “legal insurrection” as well as “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

In a televised interview Monday, Miller was asked about his remarks and asked whether the administration would abide by court rulings that stop the deployment of troops to Illinois and Portland. Miller responded by saying the president has “plenary authority” before going silent midsentence — a moment that the host said may have been a technical issue.

“Plenary authority” is a legal term that indicates someone has limitless power.

The legality of deployments to Portland and Chicago will face scrutiny in two federal courts Thursday.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal by the Trump administration in the Portland matter. A Trump-appointed judge, Karin Immergut, found the White House had not only violated the law in activating the Oregon National Guard, but it also had further defied the law by attempting to circumvent her order, sending the California National Guard in its place.

That three-judge appellate panel consists of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry declined Monday to block the deployment of National Guard members on an emergency basis, allowing a buildup of forces to proceed. She will hear arguments Thursday on the legality of the operation.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of Trump’s top political foes, has joined the fight against the president’s deployment efforts.

The Trump administration sent 14 members of California’s National Guard to Illinois to train troops from other states, according to court records filed Tuesday. Federal officials have also told California they intend to extend Trump’s federalization of 300 members of the state’s Guard through next year.

“Trump is going on a cross-country crusade to sow chaos and division,” Newsom said Wednesday. “His actions — and those of his Cabinet — are against our deeply held American values. He needs to stop this illegal charade now.”

By Wednesday evening, there were few signs of National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago. But troops from other states, including Texas’ National Guard, were waiting on the sidelines at an Army Reserve Center in Illinois as early as Tuesday.

In anticipation of the deployment, Pritzker warned that if the president’s efforts went unchecked, it would put the United States on a “the path to full-blown authoritarianism.”

The Democratic governor also said the president’s calls to jail him were “unhinged” and said Trump was a “wannabe dictator.”

“There is one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me,” Pritzker said in an interview with MSNBC.

As tensions grew in Chicago, Trump hosted an event at the White House to address how he intends to crack down on antifa, a nebulous left-wing anti-facist movement that he recently designated as a domestic terrorist organization.

At the event, the president said many of the people involved in the movement are active in Chicago and Portland — and he once again attacked the local and state leaders in both cities and states.

“You can say of Portland and you can say certainly of Chicago, it is not lawful what they are doing,” Trump said about the left-wing protests. “They are going to have to be very careful.”

Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, slammed Trump for saying he should be jailed for his actions.

“This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” Johnson posted on social media. “I’m not going anywhere.”

Pritzker continued to attack Trump’s efforts into the evening, accusing the president of “breaching the Constitution and breaking the law.”

“We need to stand up together and speak up,” the governor said on social media.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — California is challenging President Trump’s grip on the state’s National Guard, telling a federal court the White House used claims of unrest in Los Angeles as a pretext for a deployment that has since expanded nationwide — including now sending troops to Illinois.

The Trump administration deployed 14 soldiers from California’s National Guard to Illinois to train troops from other states, according to a motion California filed Tuesday asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to end the federal government’s control of its National Guard.

Trump’s decision to move California troops who had been sent to Portland on Sunday and redeploy them to Illinois escalates tensions in the growing fight over who controls state military forces — and how far presidential power can reach in domestic operations.

Federal officials have told California they intend to issue a new order extending Trump’s federalization of 300 members of the state’s Guard through Jan. 31, according to the filing.

“Trump is going on a cross-country crusade to sow chaos and division,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday. “His actions — and those of his Cabinet — are against our deeply held American values. He needs to stop this illegal charade now.”

Officials from California and Oregon sought a restraining order after Trump sent California Guard troops to Oregon on Sunday. Trump deployed the California Guard soldiers just a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the president’s efforts to federalize Oregon’s National Guard.

That prompted Judge Karin Immergut to issue a more sweeping temporary order Sunday evening blocking the deployment of National Guard troops from any other state to Oregon.

California’s own lawsuit against Trump challenging the deployment in Los Angeles since June resulted in Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer blocking the administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using” the state’s troops to engage in civilian law enforcement.

The new motion filed Tuesday in that case by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta asks the 9th Circuit to vacate its earlier stay that allowed federalization to continue under strict limits on what they can do. California argues that the Guard’s federalized troops are now being used for missions outside the limited purposes the court allowed — drug raids in Riverside County, a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park and deployments into other states.

“The ever-expanding mission of California’s federalized Guard bears no resemblance to what this Court provisionally upheld in June,” the state wrote in the filing. “And it is causing irreparable harm to California, our Nation’s democratic traditions, and the rule of law.”

Illinois leaders have also gone to court to attempt to block Trump from sending troops to Chicago. Trump has responded by saying that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker should be jailed.

WASHINGTON  — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.

Bondi, a Trump loyalist, refused to discuss her conversations with the White House about the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and the deployment of federal troops to Democrat-run cities.

She deflected questions about an alleged bribery scheme involving the president’s border advisor and declined to elaborate on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.

“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”

Her testimony came as the Justice Department faces increased accusations that it is being weaponized against President Trump’s political foes.

It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.

That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.

“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”

In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.

“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”

She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”

“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.

Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”

Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”

“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”

ELWOOD, Ill. — National Guard members from Texas were at an Army training center in Illinois on Tuesday, the most visible sign yet of the Trump administration’s plan to send troops to the Chicago area despite a lawsuit and vigorous opposition from Democratic elected leaders.

The Associated Press saw military personnel in uniforms with the Texas National Guard patch at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, 35 miles southwest of Chicago. On Monday, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott posted a picture on social media showing National Guard members from his state boarding a plane, but he didn’t specify where they were going.

There was no immediate comment from the office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. But the Democrat had predicted that Illinois National Guard troops would be activated, along with 400 from Texas.

Pritzker has accused President Trump of using troops as “political props” and “pawns.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told reporters that the administration isn’t sharing much information with the city.

“That is what is so difficult about this moment: You have an administration that is refusing to cooperate with a local authority,” Johnson said Tuesday.

A federal judge gave the Trump administration two days to respond to a lawsuit filed Monday by Illinois and Chicago challenging the plan. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday. The lawsuit says that “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous.”

Trump’s bid to deploy the military on U.S. soil over local opposition has triggered a conflict with blue state governors. In Oregon, a judge over the weekend blocked the Guard’s deployment to Portland.

The Trump administration has portrayed the cities as war-ravaged and lawless amid its crackdown on illegal immigration. Officials in Illinois and Oregon, however, say that military intervention isn’t needed and that federal involvement is inflaming the situation.

Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act if necessary. It allows the president to dispatch active-duty troops in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.

“If I had to enact it — I’d do that,” Trump said Monday. “If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up.”

The sight of armed Border Patrol agents making arrests near famous landmarks has amplified concerns from Chicagoans already uneasy after an immigration crackdown that began last month. Agents have targeted immigrant-heavy and largely Latino areas.

The Chicago mayor signed an executive order Monday barring federal immigration agents and others from using city-owned property, such as parking lots, garages and vacant lots, as staging areas for enforcement operations.

Separately, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is also suing the federal government, accusing it of unleashing a campaign of violence against peaceful protesters and journalists during weeks of demonstrations outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in suburban Broadview.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in response to the lawsuit that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect “rioting.”

In Oregon, the Portland ICE facility has been the site of nightly protests for months, peaking in June when local police declared a riot, with smaller clashes occurring since then. In recent weeks, the protests typically drew a couple of dozen people — until the deployment was announced. Over the weekend, larger crowds gathered outside the facility, and federal agents fired tear gas.

Most violent crime around the U.S. has declined in recent years. In Portland, homicides from January through June decreased by 51% to 17 this year compared with the same period in 2024, data show. In Chicago, homicides were down 31% to 278 through August, police data show.

Since starting his second term, Trump has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore; Memphis, Tenn.; the District of Columbia; New Orleans; and Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

A federal judge in September said the administration “willfully” broke federal law by deploying Guard members to Los Angeles over protests about immigration raids.

Hooley and Fernando write for the Associated Press. Fernando reported from Chicago. AP reporters Sarah Raza in Sioux Falls, S.D.; Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis.; and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

It was late Sunday evening when President Trump got thumped with a court loss — again — by California.

No, a federal judge ruled, Trump cannot command the California National Guard to invade Portland, Ore. At the request of California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and others, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut broadened a temporary restraining order that had blocked Oregon’s National Guard from being used by the federal government. It now includes not just California’s troops but troops from any state. At least for the next two weeks.

It’s the kind of legal loss Trump should be used to it by now, especially when it comes to the Golden State. Since Trump 2.0 hit the White House this year with Project 2025 folded up in his back pocket, the state of California has sued the administration 42 times, literally about once a week.

While many of those cases are still pending, California is racking up a series of wins that restored more than $160 billion in funding and at least slowed down (and in some cases stopped) the steamrolling of civil rights on issues including birthright citizenship and immigration policy.

“We have won in 80% of the cases,” Bonta told me. “Whether it be a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, and more and more now permanent final injunctions after the whole trial court case is done.”

I’ll take it. We all need some positive news. I don’t often write just about the good, but in these strange days, it’s helpful to have a reminder that the fight is always worth having when it comes to protecting our rights. And, despite the partisan Supreme Court, the reason that we are still holding on to democracy is because the system still works, albeit like a ’78 Chevy with the doors rusting off.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom has made himself the face of California’s fights against Trump, taking on a pugnacious and audacious attitude especially on social media, the day-in, day-out slugging in those battles is often done by Bonta and his team in courtrooms across the country.

It’s hard to recall, but months ago, Newsom called a special session of the Legislature to give Bonta a $25-million allowance to defend not just California but democracy. And in a moment when many of us fear that checks and balances promised in the Constitution have turned out to be little more than happy delusions, Bonta has a message: The courts are (mostly) holding and California’s lawyers aren’t just fighting, they’re winning.

“We can do things that governors can’t do,” Bonta said. “No role and no moment has been more important than this one.”

Bonta told me that he often hears that Trump is disregarding the courts, so “what’s the point of litigation at all? What’s the point of a court order at all? He’s just going to ignore them.”

But, he said, the administration has been following judges’ rulings — so far. While there have been instances, especially around deportations, that knock on the door of lawlessness, at least for California, Trump is “following all of our court orders,” Bonta said.

“We’re making a difference,” he said.

A few days ago, the U.S. Department of Education was forced to send out a final chunk of funds it had attempted to withhold from schools. Bonta, in a multistate lawsuit, successfully protected that money, which schools need this year to help migrant children and English learners, train teachers, buy new technology and pay for before- and after-school programs, among other uses.

That’s a permanent, final ruling — no appeals.

Another recent win saw California land a permanent injunction against the feds when it comes to stopping their payments for costs associated with state energy projects. That a win both for the climate and consumers, who benefit when we make energy more efficiently.

Last week, Bonta won another permanent injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s effort to tie grants related to homeland security to compliance with his immigration policies. Safety shouldn’t be tied to deportations, especially in California, where our immigrants are overwhelmingly law-abiding community members.

Those are just a few of Bonta’s victories. Of course, Trump and his minions aren’t happy about them. Stephen Miller, the shame of Santa Monica, seems to have especially lost his marbles over the National Guard ruling. On social media, Miller seems to be attacking the justice system, and attorneys general such as Bonta.

“There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country,” Miller wrote. “It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

Never mind that the Oregon judge who issued the National Guard ruling is a Trump appointee.

“Their goal, I think, is to chill and pause and worry judges; to chill and pause and worry the press; to chill and pause and worry attorneys general who stand up for the rule of law and for democracy, who go to court and fight for what’s right and fight for the law,” Bonta said.

Bonta expects the administration, far from learning any lessons or harboring self-reflection during this mad dash toward autocracy, to continue full speed ahead.

“We’re going to see more, and we’re going to see it fast, and we’re going to see it escalate,” he said. “None of that is good, including putting military in American cities or, you know, Trump treating them like his royal guard instead of the National Guard.”

Even when the Trump administration loses, “they always have this like second move and maybe a third, where they are always trying to advance their agenda, even when they’ve been blocked by a court, even when they’ve been told that they’re acting unlawfully or unconstitutionally,” he said.

On Monday, Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to circumvent the court’s ruling on the National Guard, a massive escalation of his effort to militarize American cities.

But California remains on a winning streak, much to Trump’s dismay.

It’s my bet that as long as our judges continue to honor the rule of law, that streak will hold.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

“They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C., sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those cities. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

In June, Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

“I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “…This is it. We are losing this country.”

United States President Donald Trump has authorised the deployment of 300 National Guard troops to Chicago, issuing the order after weeks of threatening to do so over the objections of local leaders.

“President Trump has authorised 300 national guardsmen to protect federal officers and assets,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said on Saturday.

“President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker announced Trump’s plan earlier Saturday after US Border Patrol personnel shot an armed woman in Chicago.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement Saturday that no law enforcement officers were seriously injured in the incident in which a group, including the shot woman, rammed cars into vehicles used by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

The woman, a US citizen who was not identified, drove herself to the hospital, according to the statement. No additional information was immediately available about the woman’s condition. ICE agents fired pepper spray and loaded rubber bullets as part of heated clashes with protesters on Saturday.

US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a post on X that she was sending additional “special operations” to control the scene in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighbourhood.

Pritzker said the guard received word from the Pentagon in the morning that the troops would be called up. He did not specify when or where they would be deployed, but Trump has long threatened to send troops to Chicago.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.” ​

A spokesperson for the governor’s office said she could not provide additional details. The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about Pritzker’s statement.

People in the Chicago area have staged repeated protests condemning the stepped-up federal presence. On Friday, police scuffled with hundreds of protesters outside an ICE facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview.

On multiple occasions, demonstrators sitting on the ground attempting to block ICE vehicles from carrying detainees into the facility have been repelled by heavily armed ICE agents using physical force, chemical munitions and rubber bullets, evoking combat scenes.

Protesters have decried what they call similar heavy-handed policing in other Democratic-run cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Portland.

Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, Tennessee National Guard troops are expected to help Memphis police.

California Governor Gavin Newsom sued to stop the deployment in Los Angeles and won a temporary block in federal court. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling that the use of the guard was illegal, and a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated that it believes the government is likely to prevail.

Pritzker called Trump’s move in Illinois a “manufactured performance” that would pull the state’s National Guard troops away from their families and regular jobs.

“For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control,” said the governor, who also noted that state, county and local law enforcement have been coordinating to ensure the safety of ICE’s Broadview facility on the outskirts of Chicago.

Federal officials reported the arrests of 13 people protesting on Friday near the facility, which has been frequently targeted during the administration’s surge in immigration enforcement this fall.

Judge blocks Portland deployment

A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland.

Trump said last month that he was sending federal troops to Portland, Oregon, calling the city “war-ravaged”. But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020, when demonstrations and unrest gripped the city following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

US District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

The US Department of Defense had said it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur after Trump called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that description was ludicrous. The US ICE building in the city has recently been the site of nightly protests, which typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.

After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.

Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.

The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.

The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.

During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.

Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Five years after protests roiled Portland, Oregon, the city known for its history of civil disobedience is again at the center of a political maelstrom as it braces for the arrival of federal troops being deployed by President Donald Trump.

Months of demonstrations outside Portland’s immigration detention facility have escalated after conservative influencer Nick Sortor was arrested late Thursday on a disorderly conduct charge by Portland Police.

On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency would send additional federal agents. She also said the Justice Department was launching a civil rights investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sortor’s arrest, and whether Portland Police engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Meanwhile, a federal judge heard arguments Friday — but did not immediately rule — on whether to temporarily block Trump’s call-up of 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect the ICE facility and other federal buildings.

The escalation of federal law enforcement in Portland, population 636,000 and Oregon’s largest city, follows similar crackdowns to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago, Baltimore and Memphis. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in Washington, D.C.

A conservative influencer arrested in Portland

Sortor, 27, who’s a regular guest on Fox News and whose X profile has more than 1 million followers, was arrested Thursday night with two other people outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. He is set to be arraigned on Monday.

What exactly led up to the arrests was not immediately clear. Portland police said in a news release that officers observed two men fighting and one of the men was knocked to the ground. Neither of the men wanted to file a police report. Police moved in about three hours later, as fights continued to break out, and arrested Sorter and two others.

All three were charged with second-degree disorderly conduct. Sorter was released Friday on his own recognizance, according to Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office’s online records. An email seeking comment from Sortor sent Friday went unanswered and no one answered phone numbers listed for him.

In a post on X on Friday morning, Sortor said his arrest proved that Portland Police are corrupt and controlled by “vioIent Antifa thugs who terrorize the streets.”

“You thought arresting me would make me shut up and go away,” he wrote.

Sortor also said that Attorney General Pam Bondi had ordered an investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and of the Portland Police Bureau.

A history of Portland protests led to this moment

Portland famously erupted in more than 100 days of sustained, nightly protests in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement. In his first term, Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to protect the U.S. District Courthouse in the heart of Portland after protests attracted thousands of people following George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police.

The presence of the federal agents further inflamed the situation, with federal officers repeatedly firing rubber bullets and teargassing protestors. Viral videos captured militarized federal officers, often unidentified, arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles.

At the same time, Portland police were unable to keep ahead of splinter groups of black-clad protesters who broke off and roamed the downtown area, at times breaking windows, spraying graffiti and setting small fires in moments that were also captured on video and shared widely on social media.

A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment needed to carry out the mission.

The tensions reached a peak in September 2020 when a self-identified member of the far-left anti-fascist movement fatally shot 39-year-old Aaron “Jay” Danielson in the chest. Danielson and a friend were seen heading downtown to protect a flag-waving caravan of Trump supporters shortly before the shooting.

The shooter, Michael Forest Reinoehl, was himself later shot and killed when he pulled a gun as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him near Lacey, Washington.

A different context for today’s protests

The situation in Portland is very different now.

There’s been a sustained and low-level protest outside the Portland ICE facility — far from the downtown clashes of 2020 — since Trump took office in January. Those protests flared in June, during the national protests surrounding Trump’s military parade, but have rarely attracted more than a few dozen people in the past two months.

Trump has once more turned his attention to the city, calling Portland “war ravaged,” and a “war zone” that is “burning down” and like “living in hell.” But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020. Under a new mayor, the city has reduced crime, and the downtown has seen a decrease in homeless encampments and increased foot traffic.

Most violent crime around the country has actually declined in recent years, including in Portland, where a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that homicides from January through June decreased by 51% this year compared to the same period in 2024.

City leaders have urged restraint and told residents not to “take the bait” this week after the announcement that the National Guard would be sent to Portland.

Oregon seeks to block National Guard deployment by Trump

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut heard arguments on whether to block the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland, where they would defend federal buildings such as the ICE facility from vandalism.

Oregon sued to stop the deployment on Sept. 28 after Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek failed to convince Trump to call off the deployment in a 10-minute phone call on Sept. 27.

Immergut did not immediately issue a ruling Friday after a short hearing and said she would issue an order later that day or over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the National Guard troops — from communities not too far from Portland — were training on the Oregon Coast in anticipation of deployment.

Thursday’s arrest of Sortor, however, likely means more federal law enforcement presence in Portland.

In an X post, which reposted a video from the protest and a photo of Sortor being detained, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said there would be an immediate increase in federal resources to the city with enhanced Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement resources.

“This violence will end under @POTUS Trump,” McLaughlin wrote.

Rush and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — There is a rhetorical battle raging here in this heavily Democratic city, known for its delicious coffee, plethora of fancy restaurants, bespoke doughnuts and also for its small faction of black-clad activists.

It started Saturday when President Trump suddenly announced that he was sending the National Guard to “war-ravaged” Portland — where a small group of demonstrators have been staging a monthslong protest at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement building south of downtown.

Oregon officials have pushed back forcefully, flooding their own social media with images of colorful cafe tables, sun-drenched farmers markets, rose gardens in full bloom and parks bursting with children, families and frolicking dogs. Officials would prefer the city be known for its Portlandia vibe, and are begging residents to stay peaceful and not give the Trump administration a protest spectacle.

A protester waves to Department of Homeland Security officials as they walk to the gates of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after inspecting an area outside in Portland, Ore.

(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

“There is no need or legal justification for military troops,” Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has said, over and over again, on her Instagram and in texts to President Trump that have been released publicly. Officials have gone to court seeking an order to stop the deployment, with a hearing set for Friday.

But the president seems resolute. In a Tuesday speech before a gathering of generals and admirals, he sketched out a controversial vision of dispatching troops to Democratic cities “as training grounds for our military” to combat an “invasion from within.” He described Portland as “a nightmare” that “looks like a warzone … like World War II.”

“The Radical Left’s reign of terror in Portland ends now,” a White House press release read, “with President Donald J. Trump mobilizing federal resources to stop Antifa-led hellfire in its tracks.”

Trump’s targeting of Portland comes after he deployed troops to Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, and threatened to do so elsewhere. The president says he is delivering on campaign pledges to restore public safety, but detractors say he’s attempting to intimidate and provoke Democratic strongholds, while distracting the nation from his various controversies.

As they wait to see whether and when the National Guard will arrive, city residents this week reacted with a mixture of rage, bafflement and sorrow.

A man rests under a public art sculpture in downtown Portland, Ore.

(Richard Darbonne / For The Times)

Many acknowledged that Portland has problems: Homelessness and open drug abuse are endemic, and encampments crowd some sidewalks. The city’s downtown has never recovered from pandemic closures and rioting that took place during George Floyd protests in 2020.

More recently, Intel — one of Oregon’s largest private employers — announced it was laying off 2,400 employees in a county just west of Portland. Like Los Angeles and many other cities, Portland has seen a big drop in tourism this year, a trend that city leaders say is not helped by Trump’s military interventions.

“We need federal help to renew our infrastructure, and build affordable housing, to help clean our rivers and plant trees,” said Portland Mayor Keith Wilson on his social media. “Instead of help, they’re sending armored vehicles and masked men.”

All across the city this week, residents echoed similar themes.

“Nothing is happening here. This is a gorgeous, peaceful city,” said Hannah O’Malley, who was snacking on french fries at a table with a view of the Willamette River outside the Portland Sports Bar and Grill.

Patrons are reflected in the window at Honey Pearl Cafe PDX in downtown Portland.

(Richard Darbonne / For The Times)

The restaurant was just a few blocks from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement building where the ongoing demonstration has become the latest focus of the president’s ire against the city.

A small group of people — a number of them women in their 60s and 70s with gray braids and top-of-the-line rain jackets — have been congregating here for months to protest the federal immigration crackdown.

In June, there were several clashes with law enforcement at the site. Police declared a riot one night, and on another night made several arrests outside the facility, including one person accused of choking a police officer. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security announced that they had arrested “four criminal illegal aliens” who allegedly conducted laser strikes on a Border Patrol helicopter “in an attempt to temporarily blind the pilot.”

But day in and day out, the protests have been largely peaceful and fairly small and nothing the city’s police force can’t handle, according to city officials and the protesters themselves.

On Monday afternoon, a group of about 40 people including grandmothers, parents and their children, and a man in a chicken costume, held flowers and signs. A few yelled abuse through a metal gate at ICE officers standing in the driveway.

People protest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Sept. 28 in Portland, Ore.

(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

“We’re so scary,” joked Kat Barnard, 67, a retired accountant for nonprofits who said she began protesting a few months ago, fitting it in between caring for her grandson. She added that she has found a sense of community while standing against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. “I’ve met so many people,” she said. “It’s just beautiful. It makes me happy.”

A few miles away, in the cafe at the city’s famed bookstore, Powell’s Books, a trio of retired friends bemoaned their beloved city’s negative image.

“This is the most peaceful, kind community I’ve ever lived in” said Lynne Avril, 74, who moved to Portland from Phoenix a few years ago. Avril, a retired illustrator who penned the artwork for the young Amelia Bedelia books, said she routinely walks home alone late at night through the city’s darkened streets, and feels perfectly safe doing so.

The president “wants another spectacle,” added Avril’s friend, Signa Schuster, 73, a retired estate manager.

“That’s what we’re afraid of,” answered Avril.

“There’s no problem here,” added Annie Olsen, 72, a retired federal worker. “It’s all performative and stupid.”

Still, the women said, they are keenly aware that their beloved city has a negative reputation nationally. Avril said that when she told friends in Phoenix that she had decided to move to Portland, “People were like: ‘Why would you move here [with] all the violence?’”

Olsen sighed and nodded. “So much misinformation,” she said.

In the front lobby of the famed bookstore, the local bestseller lists provided a window into many residents’ concerns. Two books on authoritarianism and censorship — George Orwell’s “1984” and Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” — were on the shelves. Over in nonfiction, it was the same story, with “How Fascism Works” and “On Tyranny” both making appearances.

The Willamette River runs through downtown Portland, Ore.

(Richard Darbonne / For The Times)

But outside, the sky was blue and bright despite the rain in the forecast and many residents were doing what Portlanders do with an unexpected gift from the weather gods: They were jogging and biking along the Willamette River, and sitting in outdoor cafes sipping their city’s famous coffee and nibbling on buttery pastries.

“Trump is unhinged,” said Shannon O’Connor, 57. She said that Portland has problems for sure — “homelessness, fentanyl, a huge drug problem” — but unrest is not among them.

Sprawled on a sidewalk near a freeway on-ramp, a man calling himself “Rabbit” was panhandling for money accompanied by his two beagle-pit bull mixes, Pooh Bear and Piglet.

Rabbit, 48, said he hadn’t heard of the president’s plan to send in the National Guard, but didn’t think it was necessary. He had come to Portland two years ago “to get away from all the craziness,” he said, and found it to be safe. “I haven’t been threatened yet,” he said, then knocked on wood.

Many residents said they think the president may be confusing what is happening in Portland now with a period in 2020 in which the city was briefly convulsed over Black Live Matter protests.

“We had a lot of trouble then,” said a woman who asked to be referred to only as “Sue” for fear of being doxed. “Nothing like that now.” A lifelong Portlander, she is retired and among those who have been demonstrating at the ICE facility south of downtown.

She and other residents said they have noticed that clips of the riots and other violence from 2020 have recently been recirculating on social media and even some cable news shows.

“Either he is mistaken or it is part of his propaganda,” she said of the president’s portrayal of Portland, adding that it makes her “very sad. I’ve never protested until this go-around. But we have to do something.”

As afternoon turned to evening Tuesday, the blue skies over the city gave way to clouds and drizzle. The parks and outdoor cafes emptied out.

As night fell, the retired women and children who had been protesting outside the ICE facility went home, and more and more younger people began to take their places.

By 10 p.m., law enforcement was massed on the roof of the ICE building in tactical gear. Black-clad protesters — watched over by local television reporters and some independent media — played cat and mouse with the officers, stepping toward the building only to be repelled by rounds of pepper balls.

A 39-year-old man, who asked to be called “Mushu” and who had only his eyes visible amid his black garb, stood on the corner across the street, gesturing to the independent media livestreaming the protests. “They are showing that hell that is Portland,” he said, his voice dripping with irony.

About the same time, Katie Daviscourt, a reporter with the Post Millennial, posted on X that she had been “assaulted by an Antifa agitator.” She also tweeted that “the suspect escaped into the Antifa safe house.”

A few minutes later, a group of officers burst out of a van and appeared to detain one of the protesters. Then the officers dispersed, and the standoff resumed.

Around the corner, a couple with gray hair sporting sleek rain jackets walked their little dog along the street. If they were concerned about the made-for-video drama that was playing out a few yards away, they didn’t show it. They just continued to walk their dog.

On Wednesday morning, the president weighed in again, writing on Truth Social, “Conditions continue to deteriorate into lawless mayhem.”

President Trump warned the country’s top ranking military officials Tuesday that they could be headed to “war” with U.S. citizens, signaling a major escalation in the ongoing legal battle over his authority to deploy soldiers to police American streets.

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one-by-one,” Trump said in an address to top brass in Quantico, Va. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

Commanders should use American cities as “training grounds,” the president said.

Trump’s words provoked instant pushback. Oregon has already filed a legal challenge, and experts expressed concern that what the president described is against the law.

“He is suggesting that they learn how to become warriors in American cities,” said Daniel C. Schwartz, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, who heads the legal team at National Security Leaders for America. “That should scare everybody. It’s also boldly illegal.”

The use of soldiers to assist with federal immigration raids and crowd control at protests and otherwise enforce civilian laws has been a point of contention with big city mayors and blue state governors for months, beginning with the deployment of thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles in early June.

That deployment was illegal, a federal judge ruled last month. In a scorching 52-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer barred soldiers under Trump’s command from carrying out law enforcement duties across California, warning of a “national police force with the President as its chief.”

Yet hundreds of troops remained on the streets of Los Angeles while the matter was under litigation. With the case still moving through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds more are now set to arrive in Portland, Ore., with another hundred reportedly enroute to Chicago — all over the objections of state and local leaders.

“Isolated threats to federal property should not be enough to warrant this kind of response,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The threat has to be really serious, and I don’t think the Trump administration has made that case.”

Others agreed.

“I’m tremendously worried,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Using the military for domestic law enforcement is something that’s characteristic of authoritarian regimes.”

Oregon’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Monday alleging the president had applied a “baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext” to send in the troops. Officials in Illinois, where the Trump administration has made Chicago a focal point of immigration enforcement, are also poised to file a challenge.

Although the facts on the ground are different legally, the Oregon suit is a near copy-paste of the California battle making its way through the courts, experts said.

“That’s exactly the model that they’re following,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Unlike the controversial decision to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in August, the Los Angeles and Portland deployments have relied on an esoteric subsection of the law, which allows the president to federalize troops over the objection of state governments in certain limited cases.

California’s challenge to those justifications has so far floundered in court, with the 9th Circuit finding in June that judges must be “highly deferential” to the president’s interpretation of facts on the ground. That case is under review by a larger panel of judges.

In a memo filed Monday, California Deputy Solicitor General Christopher D. Hu warned that the decision had emboldened the administration to deploy troops elsewhere, citing Portland as an example.

“Defendants apparently believe that the June 7 memorandum — issued in response to events in Los Angeles — indefinitely authorizes the deployment of National Guard troops anywhere in the country, for virtually any reason,” Hu wrote. “It is time to end this unprecedented experiment in militarized law enforcement and conscription of state National Guard troops outside the narrow conditions allowed by Congress.”

Experts warn the obscure 19th century law at the heart of the debate is vague and “full of loopholes,” worrying some who see repeated deployment as a slippery slope to widespread, long-term military occupations.

“That has not been our experience at least since the Civil War,” Schwartz said. “If we become accustomed to seeing armed uniformed service personnel in our cities, we risk not objecting to it, and when we stop objecting to it, it becomes a norm.”

The joint address to military leaders in Virginia on Tuesday further stoked those fears.

“We’re under invasion from within,” the president admonished generals and admirals gathered in the auditorium. “No different from a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”

He touted the move in August to create a “quick reaction force” to “quell civil disturbances” — a decree folded into his executive order expanding the D.C. troop deployment.

“George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others all used the armed forces to keep domestic order and peace,” Trump said. “Now they like to say, oh, you’re not allowed to use the military.”

Those historic cases have some important differences with 2025, experts say.

When President Cleveland sent troops to break up a railroad strike and tamp down mob violence against Chinese immigrants, he invoked the Insurrection Act. So did 15 other presidents, including Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush.

Experts stress that Trump has pointedly not used the act, despite name-checking it often in his first term.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday largely avoided the theme of “enemies within,” instead extolling the “warrior ethos” at the heart of his military reform project. He railed against what he saw as the corrupted culture of the modern military — as well as its aesthetic shortcomings.

“It’s tiring to look out at combat formations and see fat troops,” Hegseth said. “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon. It’s a bad look.”

As deployments multiply across the country, experts said they were watching what the appellate division and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide.

“It will be a test for the Supreme Court,” Schwartz said. “Whether they are willing to continue to allow this president to do whatever he wants to do in clear violation of constitutional principles, or whether they will restrain him.”

WASHINGTON — Two hundred members of the Oregon National Guard are being placed under federal control and deployed within the state, a move the Trump administration says is needed to protect immigration enforcement officers and government facilities, according to a Defense Department memo received by state leaders on Sunday.

The deployment is being made over the objections of state leaders and is similar to one in June in Los Angeles, where protesters demonstrated against federal immigration raids, though on a much smaller scale.

There was no immediate comment from the White House. Multiple Pentagon officials were contacted, but none would confirm or deny the authenticity of the memo.

President Trump had announced Saturday that he would send troops to Portland. The state’s governor, Democrat Tina Kotek, said Sunday that she objected to the deployment in a conversation with the president.

“Oregon is our home — not a military target,” she said in a statement.

Dan Rayfield, the state attorney general, said he was filing a federal lawsuit arguing that Trump was overstepping his authority.

“What we’re seeing is not about public safety,” he said. “It’s about the president flexing political muscle under the guise of law and order, chasing a media hit at the expense of our community.”

The Pentagon memo provided by Oregon leaders drew a direct comparison between the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles and the proposed deployment to the state, adding, “This memorandum further implements the President’s direction.”

While the memorandum does not specifically cite Portland as the target of the proposed deployment, Trump, in a social media post Saturday, said he directed the Pentagon, at the request of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, “to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

“I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” Trump added.

Unlike in Los Angeles, it does not appear that Trump or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are currently directing the deployment of active-duty troops to the state. The Trump administration deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, who were withdrawn about a month later.

The action also would be far less than Trump’s deployment to Washington, D.C., where more than 1,000 National Guard troops, including units from other states, have patrolled the streets for weeks. He also has been suggesting that he will send troops into Chicago, but so far has not done so.

Megerian and Toropin write for the Associated Press.

The city’s Democratic mayor says there is no need for the US president to send federal forces.

United States President Donald Trump has authorised the deployment of troops to the northwestern city of Portland, Oregon, as well as to federal immigration facilities around the country, in his latest controversial use of the military for domestic purposes.

Writing on his Truth Social network on Saturday, the US president said he would be asking his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to carry out the order, adding that the soldiers would be permitted to use “full force, if necessary”.

Trump claimed the move was necessary to protect “war-ravaged” Portland and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities from “domestic terrorists”, but the city’s mayor and other Democratic leaders were quick to condemn the decision.

Just days before Trump’s announcement on Saturday, a deadly shooting took place at an ICE facility in Texas. One detainee was killed and two others were severely injured in the attack, which Trump blamed, without providing evidence, on the “radical left”.

Protests against the US government’s anti-immigration policies have taken place outside ICE facilities in cities, including Portland.

It was unclear whether just the National Guard or other military branches, or both – as happened in June in Los Angeles, amid protests against immigration raids, will be deployed to Portland.

The US government has also deployed troops to the US capital, Washington, DC, in what Trump claimed was a bid to stamp out crime.

Portland and state leaders lambasted Trump on Saturday, saying his actions were against their wishes. By law, the National Guard can generally only be deployed at a state governor’s request, and there are ongoing lawsuits in California as well as Washington, DC over the deployment of troops.

“The number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city. The president will not find lawlessness or violence here unless he plans to perpetrate it,” said Keith Wilson, the mayor of Portland.

Meanwhile, US Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, noted Trump’s decision to send federal forces to the city in 2020, after protests broke out there following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Wyden said on X that Trump “may be replaying the 2020 playbook and surging into Portland with the goal of provoking conflict and violence”.

Despite Trump’s claims about Portland, overall violent crime in the city was down by 17 percent from January to June, when compared with the first six months of 2024, according to a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, “authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” to handle “domestic terrorists” in Oregon’s biggest city as he expands his deployments to more American metropolises.

He made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”

Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for details on Trump’s announcement, such as a timeline for the deployment or what troops would be involved. He previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago but has yet to follow through. A deployment in Memphis, Tenn., is expected to include about 150 troops, far fewer than were sent to the District of Columbia for Trump’s crackdown or in Los Angeles in response to immigration protests.

Pentagon officials did not immediately respond to requests for information.

Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.

He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in June as part of his law enforcement takeover in Democratic-run cities.

The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured and several protesters have been charged with assault. When protesters erected a guillotine this month, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behavior.”

Trump, in comments Thursday in the Oval Office, suggested that some kind of operation was in the works.

“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”

Earlier in September, Trump had described the environment in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.

“Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for — and do not need — federal intervention,” Portland’s mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement after Trump’s threat. Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction.”

In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday, Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who helped coordinate the operation, said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city. Memphis is led by a Democratic mayor.

Megerian writes for the Associated Press.

The city’s Democratic mayor, Paul Young, says the ‘decision has been made’ but he does not think it will drive down crime.

US President Donald Trump will extend federal law enforcement action to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, in a move that will include sending in National Guard troops and setting up a “Memphis State Task Force” to tackle crime, though police say overall criminal offences are at a 25-year low.

Trump announced the move in an executive order on Monday to rid Memphis of what he called the “tremendous levels of violent crime that have overwhelmed its local government’s ability to respond effectively”.

The executive order did not set out a timeline for when the Memphis task force, which will also include the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Marshals Service, will be deployed.

Trump described the task force as a “replica” of his crackdown on Washington, DC, in August, according to the Associated Press news agency, which saw the US president deploy the National Guard on the streets of the US capital.

Trump has pushed for a similar military involvement in policing in Baltimore and Chicago, which, like Memphis and Washington, DC, are Democratic strongholds.

Trump’s Memphis task force has the backing of Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Lee, who joined Trump in the White House for the announcement.

“I have been in office for seven years. I’m tired of crime holding the great city of Memphis back,” Lee said during a signing ceremony.

In recent weeks, @POTUS has restored law & order to DC.

Today, I was proud to stand with him as he signed an order to do the same for another American city: Memphis. In 2024, Memphis had the highest rate of violent crime per capita – nearly 7 times the national average.

City by… pic.twitter.com/mrwH4cvccZ

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) September 16, 2025

Memphis’s Democratic mayor, Paul Young, said on X that he did not think deploying the National Guard would drive down crime, but “the decision has been made”.

“Yesterday morning, we learned that the Governor & President have decided to place the National Guard & other resources in Memphis, which they have the authority to do. I want to be clear: I did not ask for the National Guard and I don’t think it is the way to drive down crime,” Young said on X.

Yesterday morning, we learned that the Governor & President have decided to place the National Guard & other resources in Memphis, which they have the authority to do.

I want to be clear: I did not ask for the National Guard and I don’t think it is the way to drive down crime. pic.twitter.com/gYO2LSEtC5

— Paul Young (@mayorpaulyoung) September 13, 2025

Memphis is known globally for its music industry and its historic ties to rock and roll, soul and the blues. Last year, it reported the highest violent crime rate among US cities of 100,000 people or more, according to 2024 FBI crime data.

A review by Al Jazeera of FBI crime statistics found the rate of violent crime – which includes murder, negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault – for Memphis was 2,501 per 100,000 people in 2024. The city was followed by Oakland, California, at 1,925 per 100,000 and Detroit, Michigan, at 1,781 per 100,000 people.

Memphis police, however, say this figure does not paint a full picture of the city’s violent crime situation amid “historic crime reductions” in the first eight months of 2025.

“Overall crime is at a 25-year low, with robbery, burglary, and larceny also reaching 25-year lows. Murder is at a six-year low, aggravated assault at a five-year low, and sexual assault at a twenty-year low,” police said last week.

Despite this decline, the city reported 146 homicides so far in 2025 and 4,308 cases of aggravated assault.