The Pentagon is withdrawing some National Guard troops from Chicago and Portland, weeks after President Donald Trump deployed them to combat what he described as increased crime, a U.S. defense official familiar with the decision said on Sunday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 200 California National Guard troops who were sent to Portland and 200 Texas National Guard members who were sent to Chicago would return to their home states as soon as Sunday.
The Trump administration sent the troops to those cities last month, saying they were needed to support domestic immigration enforcement personnel who were being confronted by activists and protesters.
However, the troops never joined immigration operations in those cities because of lawsuits challenging their deployment.
An Inc.com Featured Presentation
The Pentagon and a spokesperson for Oregon’s governor did not immediately respond to requests for comments. A spokesperson for Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said the state had not heard from the federal government about a withdrawal of troops.
“In the coming days, the Department will be shifting and/or rightsizing our Title 10 footprint in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago to ensure a constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city,” the U.S. Northern Command posted on X on Friday.
“Our troops in each city (and others) are trained and ready, and will be employed whenever needed to support law enforcement and keep our citizens safe.”
Trump, a Republican, has also deployed the National Guard to other Democratic-led cities, including Los Angeles, Memphis and Washington.
The deployments were criticized by Democrats who sued to block them, and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether Trump’s actions are lawful.
Reporting by Idrees Ali and Jasper Ward; Editing by Sergio Non, Alex Richardson and Paul Simao
Hundreds of National Guard troops that were dispatched to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, from California and Texas in response to protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown will return to their home states, a Defense Department official confirmed to CBS News Saturday.
Last month, about 200 federalized California National Guard soldiers were sent to Portland, while another 200 federalized Texas National Guard soldiers were sent to Chicago. All those soldiers will return, the official said.
In both cases, the White House had argued that the troops were being sent to “protect federal assets and personnel,” with the president invoking Title 10 of the federal code, which allows for its use if the president deems that “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”
Federal judges, however — in response to lawsuits brought by city and state officials — had so far blocked federalized National Guard soldiers from actually being deployed on the streets of Portland and Chicago, keeping them in a kind of holding pattern while they awaited the legal wrangling of their cases to play out.
The defense official also told CBS News that the number of federalized Oregon National Guard members will be reduced from 200 to 100. The approximately 300 Illinois National Guard members that were previously federalized as part of the operation will remain under federal control, the official added.
Federal law enforcement officers clear protesters from a driveway outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as protests against the Trump administration continue in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 6, 2025.
Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
This comes after U.S. Northern Command issued a statement Friday which said that the Department of War, the Trump administration’s preferred name for the Defense Department, would “be shifting and/or rightsizing our Title 10 footprint in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago to ensure a constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”
Portland and Chicago have seen months-long demonstrations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Mr. Trump’s controversial decision to attempt to deploy federal troops in response has prompted heavy pushback from local and state officials, who criticize the moves as an unnecessary escalation.
Citing either crime or a need to protect federal property and personnel from protesters, Mr. Trump also deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Memphis.
National Guardsman stands watch. Download from MGN.
PORTLAND, OR – 200 members of the California National Guard intended for deployment in Portland will be sent home, according to a report from ABC News. That same report makes reference to U.S. officials who also say another 200 federalized Texas National Guard members sent to Chicago will return to their home state.
On Friday night, U.S. Northern Command posted on X that changes would be made to mission plans for troops but provide few details, other than to say “…the Department will be shifting and/or rightsizing our Title 10 footprint in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago to ensure a constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”
Obtained from U.S. Northern Command via X.
California will maintain a ready force of 100 Guard members and Texas will maintain a force of 200 members who have all volunteered for the mission, according to one of the officials who spoke with ABC.
Reportedly, the number of federalized Oregon National Guard troops on active duty will be reduced from 200 to 100.
The ruling last week from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law. The city and state filed the lawsuit in September to block the deployment.
People gather outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 22, 2025, to protest against President Trump’s recent aggressive immigration enforcement actions.
Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images
In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.
The administration criticized the decision and said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump has described as “war ravaged.”
“The district court’s ruling made it clear that this administration must be accountable to the truth and to the rule of law,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an emailed statement Friday in response to the administration’s appeal. “We will keep defending Oregon values and standing up for our state’s authority to make decisions grounded in evidence and common sense.”
Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court.
Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which filed a separate lawsuit on the issue that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling “permanently” blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.
In late September, President Trump announced he would be deploying federal troops to Portland in response to downtown protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility over the administration’s immigration crackdown. The Trump administration later placed 200 Oregon National Guard troops under federal control, and attempted to deploy another 200 federalized California National Guard troops in Portland as well.
Mr. Trump invoked Title 10 of the federal code in his deployment efforts, which allows for its use if the president deems that “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”
The moves prompted a lawsuit from city and state officials in Portland, Oregon and California.
In her 106-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote that “this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard.”
The ruling, however, will allow the National Guard troops to remain under federal control for a period of at least 14 days.
“President Trump is using his lawful authority to direct the National Guard to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following months of violent riots where officers have been assaulted and doxxed by left-wing rioters,” Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement Friday night in response to the ruling. “The President’s lawful actions will make Portland safer.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Friday night in a statement: “The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
In her own statement, Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said, “This ruling, now the fourth of its kind, validates the facts on the ground. Oregon does not want or need military intervention, and President Trump’s attempts to federalize the guard is a gross abuse of power. Oregon National Guard members have been away from their jobs and families for 38 days. The California National Guard has been here for just over one month. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now.”
People gather outside the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility to protest against President Trump’s recent aggressive immigration enforcement actions and plans to deploy National Guard troops in the city in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 22, 2025. Some small groups expressed support for ICE and Trump.
Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images
Under Title 10, the “president may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws,” in the event that “the United States, or any of the commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States; or the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The latest decision comes after Immergut, an appointee of Mr. Trump, issued a 16-page ruling Sunday temporarily barring the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland following a three-day trial in which she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control.
Immergut had said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.
“After a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and hundreds of exhibits describing protest activity outside the Portland ICE building, the evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority,” Immergut wrote Friday.
The Trump administration on Monday appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Mr. Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Mr. Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”
One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by the 9th Circuit court. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.
During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Mr. Trump’s National Guard announcement.
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge on Friday issued a permanent injunction blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, ruling that the federal government overstepped its authority in responding to protests outside the city’s ICE facility.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s decision makes permanent a preliminary injunction she granted last week. While the ruling is final at the district court level, the legal fight is far from over. The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, where a similar case from Illinois is already pending.
The dispute began in late September after President Donald Trump announced he would place 200 Oregon National Guard members under federal control, describing Portland as “war-ravaged” and claiming the ICE building was “under siege from Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” Oregon officials quickly sued, arguing that Trump’s actions exceeded the authority granted to him under federal law. The president may only federalize state National Guard troops in cases of invasion, rebellion or when federal laws cannot be enforced — conditions, state officials argued, that did not apply in Portland.
Immergut agreed, writing in her ruling that there was no credible evidence that protests had become unmanageable or that they posed serious harm to federal personnel. In the 106-page injunction, she barred Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and their departments from enforcing existing deployment orders or issuing new ones based on similar justifications. The injunction applies to National Guard troops from all states and does not have an expiration date.
Reaction to the ruling came swiftly from Oregon leaders. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden said the decision affirms that the protests against the administration’s immigration policies were largely peaceful and that federal troop deployments were unnecessary. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called it a victory for the rule of law, saying the case has always been about ensuring that facts, not political rhetoric, guide legal decisions. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said the ruling supports the city’s position that no federal troops were needed, adding that Portland would continue working with community and state partners to uphold public safety and civil rights. Gov. Tina Kotek called the attempted deployment a “gross abuse of power” and renewed her request for all federalized troops to return home.
The ruling leaves in place a nationwide prohibition on deploying National Guard troops to Portland unless it is overturned on appeal. State officials said Oregon Guard members have been away from their families and jobs for more than a month, and have urged the administration to comply with the injunction.
USA women’s national team midfielder Olivia Moultrie shoots the ball as Republic of Ireland defends in the second half of an international friendly soccer match June 26, 2025, in Commerce City, Colo. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Portland Thorns have signed midfielder Olivia Moultrie to a contract extension that will keep her with the National Women’s Soccer League team through 2029.
The 20-year-old, who was U.S. Soccer’s Young Player of the Year in 2023, has also made 10 appearances with the national team, recently scoring a pair of goals in a 3-1 victory over Portugal.
Moultrie signed with the Thorns in 2021 at 15 after filing a lawsuit against the NWSL that challenged a rule prohibiting players under 18. At the time, she was the youngest player in the league.
Moultrie has appeared in 95 NWSL matches with the Thorns, including 65 starts, scoring 18 goals with 11 assists.
“From day one, this organization has believed in me and supported my development in ways I’ll always be grateful for,” Moultrie said in a statement. “I grew up in this league wearing Thorns colors and that’s shaped me and my expectations.”
Moultrie leads the Thorns with eight goals this season and has appeared in 26 games with 24 starts. Portland finished third in the league standings and made the playoffs for the ninth straight season.
The Thorns, who won league championships in 2013, 2017 and 2022, will host the San Diego Wave in a quarterfinal match on Sunday.
“We are thrilled to extend Olivia as a Thorn for the foreseeable future. We have seen her playing arc see tremendous growth over the course of her development in Portland. Her on-field capabilities, her sheer competitiveness, and the maturity off the pitch has established her as one of our nation’s brightest young stars,” said Jeff Agoos, Portland’s president and general manager.
Moultrie was also awarded the 2025 Supporters Player of the Year by the Rose City Riveters, Portland’s supporters group.
A judge has extended her order blocking President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, dealing a setback to the White House as it tries to send the military to cities over the objection of their Democratic leaders.
Newsweek contacted the White House for comment by emails after office hours.
Why It Matters
Trump has deployed federalized National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., to tackle what he says is surging crime and he is attempting to do the same in several other Democrat-run cities against the wishes of the local governments.
His efforts have suffered a series of legal blows, including a federal court blocking the administration from federalizing the Illinois National Guard ahead of a planned deployment to Chicago. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.
At the heart of the debate is the extent of the president’s constitutional authority to deploy military forces domestically over the objects of city and state governments.
What To Know
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut’s decision late on Sunday comes after a three-day hearing that saw arguments over whether the Trump administration had violated the law by federalizing and trying to deploy Oregon and California troops to Portland.
She said she would continue to block the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Oregon until 5 p.m. on Friday, November 7, according to a copy of her decision reviewed by Newsweek.
Protests have erupted on the streets of Portland and elsewhere in opposition to the federal government’s immigration enforcement. Trump has referred to the protesters, whose focus in Portland has been the city’s ICE facility, as “agitators, insurrectionists.”
During last week’s trial, the legal team for the city and the states of Oregon and California argued that the situation in Portland has been manageable by local police, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
Lawyers for the Trump administration said demonstrators had broken significant laws, a Justice Department attorney said, and that the president did not have to wait for the gatherings to grow into a full-fledged rebellion.
Immergut said in her ruling: “Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel.”
She said most of the violence appeared to be between protesters and counterprotesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.
What People Are Saying
Karin Immergut, U.S. District Court judge for Oregon, wrote in her ruling: “The violence that did occur during this time period predominately involved violence between protesters and counterprotesters, not violence against federal officers or the ICE facility.”
What Happens Next
Friday’s ruling prevents the Trump administration deploying National Guard personnel to Portland until 5 p.m. on Friday. It remains to be seen whether they will be legally permitted to make such a deployment.
A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.
The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.
It’s the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to quell protests.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, an appointee of Mr. Trump, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.
In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.
The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.
Law enforcement officers watch from a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.
Jenny Kane / AP
Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.
“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.
The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Mr. Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Mr. Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Mr. Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”
One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.
During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Mr. Trump’s National Guard announcement.
Federal agents detain someone during a protest held outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, Saturday, Oct. 18, 2025.
Dave Killen / AP
The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.
Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.
R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.
Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.
Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”
In early October, Keith Wilson, the mayor of Portland, Oregon, visited 4310 South Macadam Avenue, an address that has thrust his city back into the national spotlight—and into the crosshairs of President Donald Trump. Since June, this site, the local headquarters for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had been the focus of daily protests, with activists rallying against the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, often clashing with MAGA counter-protesters. Although the demonstrations were colorful—a carnivalesque atmosphere, with people wearing inflatable frog suits and other costumes—the ICE facility itself, a former data-processing center for a regional bank, with boarded-up windows, was about as incognito as the masked, armed federal officers who guarded it from the rooftop.
To the public, what was going on inside the building largely remained a mystery. No media, beyond Trump-friendly right-wing influencers, had been allowed in. But Wilson was “summoned” to the building, in his words, to meet with Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, who came to town after Trump announced, on Truth Social, that he was authorizing “all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.” Wilson hoped to persuade Noem that there was no need for federal intervention—that the city had its protests under control. But, after visiting the building, he reached the conclusion that ICE itself lacked any discipline or control. “It’s dishevelled,” he told me, of the conditions inside. “It’s unkempt. It’s disorganized.”
It was a warm day, around eighty degrees, and the first thing Wilson noticed when he entered the facility was how hot it was inside. “The H.V.A.C. system was broken,” he said. During his visit, he saw overflowing dumpsters. He saw tired, agitated officers. In otherwise empty offices, he saw crowd-control munitions and body armor strewn about. “You can just see they’re making it up as they go,” Wilson, a former C.E.O. of a trucking company, said. “There’s no plan. And, if there’s no plan, you don’t know the objective. Without an objective, you’re just wasting time and money—and they’re wasting time and money.”
Noem’s visit to Portland didn’t quite go as planned. The apparent purpose of the trip was to bolster the Administration’s case that the city was overrun by left-wing insurrectionists, but, during a rooftop photo op, Noem surveyed the site of the daily protests, presumably the most war-torn part of the city, only to find the street below empty. The Portland police, in accordance with its policy when dignitaries visit the city, had cordoned off the area. A smattering of demonstrators stood on the periphery, including a man in a chicken costume. Another protester blasted the theme from “The Benny Hill Show,” mocking Noem’s visit. In a video circulating online, Noem is expressionless—this probably wasn’t the war zone she’d come to capture. When she met with Wilson, he further shattered the plot, asking her to reconsider sending in troops. “She took issue with that,” he told me. “They’re trying to create a narrative. It’s a falsehood. It’s got no legs.”
I’d seen this split screen before. When I covered the last wave of high-profile protests in Portland, back in 2020, I discovered that the Trump Administration’s characterization of the situation didn’t always match what was happening on the ground. This time, the contrast appeared even sharper. I arrived in Portland last Monday—the same day that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the White House can federalize the Oregon National Guard to deploy in the city. Residents seemed on edge, the mayor included. Was there a sense of anxiety about potential troops on the streets, I asked Wilson. “Every day,” he said.
Trump has been preoccupied with Portland since at least 2018, when he publicly scolded then Mayor Ted Wheeler for allowing “an angry mob of violent people” to confront federal agents. In 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Trump referred to Black Lives Matter protesters as “radical anarchists” and deployed seven hundred and fifty-five D.H.S. officers to Portland to protect the city’s federal buildings, intensifying nightly clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
In recent weeks, Trump has reignited his fight with the largest city in Oregon. “I don’t know what could be worse than Portland,” he said in October, during a White House roundtable on the supposed dominance of Antifa in America. “You don’t even have stores anymore.” (There are more than three thousand retail businesses in the city.) “When a store owner rebuilds a store,” he said at a news conference, “they build it out of plywood.” (In four days of driving around the city, I was unable to spot a store constructed of plywood.) “Portland is burning to the ground,” he claimed, on multiple occasions. (I couldn’t find any fires, either.)
PORTLAND/MIAMI: Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier are among more than 30 people charged in connection with illegal sports betting and rigged poker games tied to organized crime, authorities said on October 23.
According to federal prosecutors, Rozier and others were part of a sports betting scheme that used insider NBA information, while Billups is accused in a separate case involving poker games backed by Mafia families.
The indictment lists nine unnamed co-conspirators, including a Florida-based NBA player, an Oregon resident who played in the league between 1997 and 2014 and became a coach in 2021, and a relative of Rozier.
Both men are well-known in the basketball world. Billups, a five-time NBA All-Star and Hall of Fame inductee, became Portland’s head coach in 2021 and signed a multi-year extension this year. Rozier, drafted in 2015, has played for Boston, Charlotte, and Miami.
Prosecutors allege Rozier and others used private information — such as player injuries or team strategies — to place or assist in bets that could affect the outcome of NBA games. In return, they allegedly received payments or a share of profits.
New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said players sometimes altered their performance or left games early to influence bets. In one case, Rozier allegedly told others he would leave a game with a “fake injury” while playing for the Charlotte Hornets, helping his associates win thousands of dollars in wagers.
U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. called the operation “one of the most brazen sports corruption schemes since sports betting became legal in much of the U.S.” Six people were accused of a betting conspiracy, which authorities say relied on confidential NBA information to profit illegally.
The second case involves 31 defendants accused of running a nationwide network of underground poker games, mainly in the New York area. Prosecutors say the games were fixed using hidden technology that allowed players to cheat victims out of millions of dollars. Mafia families and former professional athletes allegedly supported the poker network.
Attorney Jim Trusty, representing Rozier, criticized the arrest, saying his client had cooperated with prosecutors. “Instead of allowing him to surrender, they staged a photo op,” he said, calling the arrest a “public embarrassment.”
Federal investigators said the cases involve “tens of millions of dollars” in fraud, theft, and crypto-related schemes. “Everyone will be held accountable,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Raj Patel.
Authorities confirmed that 31 people are in custody, and others are expected to surrender in the coming days.
Deni Avdija had 26 points and six assists, and the Portland Trail Blazers beat the Golden State Warriors 139-119 on Friday night in Tiago Splitter’s first game as interim head coach.
Splitter is stepping in after coach Chauncey Billups was arrested by the FBI early Thursday and arraigned in federal court later that day.
Splitter told reporters before the game he wanted to keep his team focused on basketball.
Stephen Curry #30 of the Golden State Warriors drives with the ball against the Portland Trail Blazers in the second quarter at Moda Center on October 24, 2025 in Portland, Oregon.
Tom Hauck / Getty Images
Jerami Grant scored 22 points, Toumani Camara had 19, and Shaedon Sharpe added 17. Donovan Clingan had 14 points, Kris Murray scored 13, Jrue Holiday added 12 points and 11 assists, and Matisse Thybulle had 10 points.
Stephen Curry scored 35 points for the Warriors, Jonathan Kuminga had 16 points, Jimmy Butler 14 and Draymond Green 12.
Both teams shot well from the 3-point line with Portland making 47% (16 for 34) and Golden State 42% (16 for 38). However, the Trail Blazers outscored the Warriors 66-30 in the paint.
The Warriors started the game on a 12-4 run but Portland rallied to it at 17. A personal 8-0 run by Curry put the Warriors up 25-17. Portland rallied to tie the score at 28 by the end of the first quarter.
Portland continued their strong play in the second. Avdija scored 20 points in the first half while Grant pitched in 17. Portland outscored Golden State 41-28 in the second quarter to take a 13-point lead into halftime.
With 7:50 left in the third quarter, Curry converted a four-point play to cut Portland’s lead to 81-72 but the Warriors held on and led by as many as 25.
Golden State pulled Curry from the game with 9:35 left and trailing 115-97.
Golden State hosts Memphis on Monday night.
Portland visits the Los Angeles Clippers on Sunday night.
A mechanical issue caused the takeoff of a Delta Air Lines flight from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to be suspended on Thursday, the company said in a statement.
Delta flight 1661 was moving on the tarmac and in the process of taking off for Portland, Oregon, when the mechanical issue happened.
According to Delta, the plane returned to the gate and travelers were put on another plane, which landed in Portland International Airport around two hours after it was originally scheduled to arrive.
“We apologize to our customers for their delay in travel,” Delta said in a written statement.
Last month, a Delta flight had to abort a takeoff from MSP due to a window in the cockpit coming open. The flight, which was carrying around 150 passengers and six crew members at the time of the incident, was heading to Las Vegas.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.
A decision could come at any time.
And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.
Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.
The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”
Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.
That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.
Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.
Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.
When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.
Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers
That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.
“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”
“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.
“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”
Conservatives cite civil rights examples
Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.
“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”
He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.
The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”
While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”
Lower courts have blocked deployments
Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.
Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”
In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.
A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.
But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.
“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”
Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.
“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”
U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.
“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”
He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.
“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “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 said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.
NEW YORK — Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier were arrested Thursday along with more than 30 other people accused of participating in schemes involving illegal sports betting and rigged poker games backed by the Mafia, authorities said.
Rozier is accused of participating in an illegal sports betting scheme using private insider NBA information, officials said. Billups, a Denver native who starred for the Nuggets during a long playing career, is charged in a separate indictment alleging a wide-ranging scheme to rig underground poker games that were backed by Mafia families, authorities said.
Both men face money laundering and wire fraud conspiracy charges and were expected to make initial court appearances later Thursday.
In the first case, six defendants are accused of participating in an insider sports betting conspiracy that exploited confidential information about NBA athletes and teams, said Joseph Nocella, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. He called it “one of the most brazen sports corruption schemes since online sports betting became widely legalized in the United States.”
The second case involves 31 defendants in a nationwide scheme to rig illegal poker games, Nocella said. The defendants include former professional athletes accused of using technology to steal millions of dollars in underground poker games in the New York area that were backed by Mafia families, he said.
“My message to the defendants who’ve been rounded up today is this: Your winning streak has ended. Your luck has run out,” Nocella said.
A message seeking comment was left Thursday morning with Billups. A message was also left with Rozier’s lawyer, Jim Trusty. Trusty previously told ESPN that Rozier was told that an initial investigation determined he did nothing wrong after he met with NBA and FBI officials in 2023, the sports network reported.
In the sports betting scheme, players sometimes altered their performance or took themselves out of games early, New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said. In one instance, Rozier, while playing for the Hornets, told people he was planning to leave the game early with a “supposed injury,” allowing them to place wagers that raked in thousands of dollars, Tisch said.
The indictment of Rozier and others says there are nine unnamed co-conspirators, including a Florida resident who was an NBA player, an Oregon resident who was an NBA player from about 1997 to 2014 and an NBA coach since at least 2021, as well as a relative of Rozier. Billups played in the NBA from 1997 to 2014 and currently resides in Portland as the Trail Blazers’ head coach.
Rozier and other defendants “had access to private information known by NBA players or NBA coaches” that was likely to affect the outcome of games or players’ performances and provided that information to other co-conspirators in exchange for either a flat fee or a share of betting profits, the indictment says.
The NBA placed Billups and Rozier on immediate leave Thursday and released a statement: “We are in the process of reviewing the federal indictments announced today. Terry Rozier and Chauncey Billups are being placed on immediate leave from their teams, and we will continue to cooperate with the relevant authorities. We take these allegations with the utmost seriousness, and the integrity of our game remains our top priority.”
Rozier was in uniform as the Heat played the Magic on Wednesday evening in Orlando, Florida, in the season opener for both teams, though he did not play in the game. He was taken into custody in Orlando early Thursday morning. The team did not immediately comment on the arrest.
The case was brought by the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn that previously prosecuted ex-NBA player Jontay Porter. The former Toronto Raptors center pleaded guilty to charges that he withdrew early from games, claiming illness or injury, so that those in the know could win big by betting on him to underperform expectations.
Billups was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame last year. The five-time All-Star and three-time All-NBA point guard led the Detroit Pistons to their third league title in 2004 as NBA Finals MVP.
The Denver-born phenom graduated from George Washington High School and played basketball at CU before being selected with the No. 3 overall pick in the 1997 NBA draft by the Boston Celtics. Known as Mr. Big Shot nationally and the King of Park Hill locally in Denver, Billups also played for Toronto, Denver, Minnesota, the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Clippers. Billups won the Joe Dumars Trophy, the NBA’s sportsmanship award, in 2009 while playing for his hometown Nuggets.
The 49-year-old Billups is in his fifth season as Portland’s coach, compiling a 117-212 record. The Trail Blazers opened the season Wednesday night at home with a 118-114 loss to Minnesota. Billups’ brother, Rodney, is currently the Nuggets’ director of player development and an assistant coach on David Adelman’s staff.
A game involving Rozier that has been in question was a matchup between the Hornets and the New Orleans Pelicans on March 23, 2023. Rozier played the first 9 minutes and 36 seconds of that game — and not only did not return that night, citing a foot issue, but did not play again that season. Charlotte had eight games remaining and was not in playoff contention, so it did not seem particularly unusual that Rozier was shut down for the season’s final games.
In that game, Rozier finished with five points, four rebounds and two assists in that opening period — a productive quarter but well below his usual total output for a full game.
Posts still online from March 23, 2023, show that some bettors were furious with sportsbooks that evening when it became evident that Rozier was not going to return to the Charlotte-New Orleans game after the first quarter, with many turning to social media to say that something “shady” had gone on regarding the prop bets involving his stats for that night.
A prop is a type of wager that allows gamblers to bet on whether a player will exceed a certain statistical number, such as whether the player will finish over or under a certain total of points, rebounds or assists.
___
Durkin Richer reported from Washington, and Reynolds reported from Miami. Associated Press writers David Collins in Hartford, Connecticut, and Larry Lage in Detroit contributed to this report.
Protesters gathered Thursday outside a U.S. Coast Guard base in the San Francisco Bay Area, where U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents arrived to support federal efforts to track down immigrants in the country illegally.Several hundred people, many singing hymns and carrying signs saying “No ICE or troops in the Bay,” referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, gathered near the base shortly after dawn. Police used at least one flash-bang grenade to clear a handful of demonstrators from the entrance as CBP vehicles drove through. Organizers urged protesters to remain peaceful, as a line of Coast Guard officers in helmets watched from an intersection at the Oakland entrance to the bridge that leads to Coast Guard Island. Video posted by NBC Bay Area showed a vehicle driving over a protester’s foot at one point while the roadway was blocked.A clergyman said an agent shot him in the face with a projectile at close range. He went to the ER. In another violent moment, a private security guard was assaulted. His company told KCRA 3 that the man was jumped and beaten up after arriving there. It was not clear what provoked the attack. At night, what sounded like gunfire rang out as video from KTVU showed Coast Guard members firing at a U-Haul truck as it was rapidly reversing onto federal property. It’s unclear if anyone was struck.A group of California Highway Patrol officers in riot gear arrived at the scene around 2:15 p.m. and cleared part of the intersection.The protests remained mostly peaceful, though KCRA 3’s Maricela De La Cruz saw a man and a woman being detained.Cars were seen leaving the bridge from Coast Guard Island after 3 p.m. By 4 p.m., CHP agents had left the area and protesters returned to the intersection. The developments unfolded the same day President Donald Trump said he would back off a planned surge of federal agents into San Francisco after speaking to the mayor.Trump posted on social media that Mayor Daniel Lurie told him Wednesday night that the city was making progress in reducing crime. Trump said he agreed to let San Francisco keep trying on its own.Lurie said Thursday morning he received a phone call from Trump Wednesday night in which the president told him he was “calling off any plans for a federal deployment in San Francisco.” Lurie said in a statement that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “reaffirmed that direction” in a conversation Thursday morning.It was not clear if the president was canceling a National Guard deployment or calling off immigration enforcement by CBP agents. Lurie’s office did not respond to requests for clarification.The San Francisco Chronicle, citing an anonymous source with knowledge of the operation, reported Wednesday that more than 100 CBP and other federal agents would arrive this week. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and California Gov. Gavin Newsom immediately condemned the move. The two Democrats said the action was meant to provoke violent protests.Trump has repeatedly said he plans to deploy National Guard troops to San Francisco to quell crime, but his administration hasn’t offered a timeline for doing so. His assertions of out-of-control crime in the city of roughly 830,000 have baffled local and state leaders, who point to statistics showing that many crimes are at record lows.Trump has deployed the Guard to Washington, D.C., and Memphis, Tennessee, to help fight what he says is rampant crime. Los Angeles was the first city where Trump deployed the Guard, arguing it was necessary to protect federal buildings and agents as protesters fought back against mass immigration arrests.He has also said they are needed in Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Lawsuits from Democratic officials in both cities have so far blocked troops from going out on city streets.Coast Guard Island is an artificial island formed in 1913, and the Coast Guard first established a base there in 1926. The island is owned by the federal government and is not open to the general public, so escorts or specific government ID cards are required for visitors. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which also houses ICE and CBP.(See footage of the demonstrations from around noon in the video below.)See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
ALAMEDA, Calif. —
Protesters gathered Thursday outside a U.S. Coast Guard base in the San Francisco Bay Area, where U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents arrived to support federal efforts to track down immigrants in the country illegally.
Several hundred people, many singing hymns and carrying signs saying “No ICE or troops in the Bay,” referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, gathered near the base shortly after dawn.
This content is imported from YouTube.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Police used at least one flash-bang grenade to clear a handful of demonstrators from the entrance as CBP vehicles drove through. Organizers urged protesters to remain peaceful, as a line of Coast Guard officers in helmets watched from an intersection at the Oakland entrance to the bridge that leads to Coast Guard Island.
Video posted by NBC Bay Area showed a vehicle driving over a protester’s foot at one point while the roadway was blocked.
A clergyman said an agent shot him in the face with a projectile at close range. He went to the ER.
This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
In another violent moment, a private security guard was assaulted. His company told KCRA 3 that the man was jumped and beaten up after arriving there. It was not clear what provoked the attack.
At night, what sounded like gunfire rang out as video from KTVU showed Coast Guard members firing at a U-Haul truck as it was rapidly reversing onto federal property. It’s unclear if anyone was struck.
A group of California Highway Patrol officers in riot gear arrived at the scene around 2:15 p.m. and cleared part of the intersection.
The protests remained mostly peaceful, though KCRA 3’s Maricela De La Cruz saw a man and a woman being detained.
Cars were seen leaving the bridge from Coast Guard Island after 3 p.m.
This content is imported from YouTube.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
By 4 p.m., CHP agents had left the area and protesters returned to the intersection.
The developments unfolded the same day President Donald Trump said he would back off a planned surge of federal agents into San Francisco after speaking to the mayor.
Trump posted on social media that Mayor Daniel Lurie told him Wednesday night that the city was making progress in reducing crime. Trump said he agreed to let San Francisco keep trying on its own.
Lurie said Thursday morning he received a phone call from Trump Wednesday night in which the president told him he was “calling off any plans for a federal deployment in San Francisco.” Lurie said in a statement that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “reaffirmed that direction” in a conversation Thursday morning.
This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Yesterday, I spoke to San Franciscans about a potential federal deployment in our city. I said then what I have said since taking office, that keeping San Franciscans safe is my top priority.
Late last night, I received a phone call from the President of the United States. I…
It was not clear if the president was canceling a National Guard deployment or calling off immigration enforcement by CBP agents. Lurie’s office did not respond to requests for clarification.
Trump has repeatedly said he plans to deploy National Guard troops to San Francisco to quell crime, but his administration hasn’t offered a timeline for doing so. His assertions of out-of-control crime in the city of roughly 830,000 have baffled local and state leaders, who point to statistics showing that many crimes are at record lows.
Trump has deployed the Guard to Washington, D.C., and Memphis, Tennessee, to help fight what he says is rampant crime. Los Angeles was the first city where Trump deployed the Guard, arguing it was necessary to protect federal buildings and agents as protesters fought back against mass immigration arrests.
He has also said they are needed in Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Lawsuits from Democratic officials in both cities have so far blocked troops from going out on city streets.
Coast Guard Island is an artificial island formed in 1913, and the Coast Guard first established a base there in 1926. The island is owned by the federal government and is not open to the general public, so escorts or specific government ID cards are required for visitors. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which also houses ICE and CBP.
(See footage of the demonstrations from around noon in the video below.)
This content is imported from YouTube.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
President Donald Trump says he still has options on the table for sending military into Chicago, where local leaders and courts have so far blocked his efforts to send the National Guard.
“Don’t forget I can use the Insurrection Act. Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used that. And that’s unquestioned power,” Trump said during an Oct. 19 Fox News interview. “I choose not to.”
Trump has said if courtsrule against his efforts to use a rarely used statute to deploy National Guard troops, he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old set of laws that allow the president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law.
Insurrection Act invocations aren’t as commonplace as Trump made them out to be.
The act has been used on 30 occasions in U.S. history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Seventeen of the country’s 45 presidents, about 37%, have officially invoked it. The act hasn’t been used in more than 30 years.
Sign up for PolitiFact texts
Trump is wrong to say the act gives him unquestioned power, legal experts said. Due process rights under the constitution remain in place and courts can rule on the invocation’s legality even if they’ve been historically deferential to a president’s use of the law. His statement also ignores critical context about the conditions under which the act has previously been invoked.
The act “has been used very rarely and almost exclusively in circumstances where there would be popular acknowledgement that there is an ongoing rebellion or some kind of ongoing civil conflict that is of a pretty profound nature,” Bernadette Meyler, Stanford University law professor, said.
Protests against immigration enforcement and crime aren’t “the kind of trigger that ever has been used for invoking the Insurrection Act,” she said.
The White House did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment.
When has the Act been invoked and for what purposes?
Most of the Insurrection Act’s invocations took place more than 100 years ago.
Former President Ulysses S. Grant invoked the law six times in the 1870s — the most of any president — as white supremacist groups violently revolted after the Civil War. (Trump has said one president used the law “28 times,” without naming him. That’s inaccurate.)
From 1962 to 1963, former President John F. Kennedy used the Insurrection Act three times to combat local governments that were forcibly opposing school desegregation following the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision.
In this Oct. 15, 1957, file photo, seven of nine black students walk onto the campus of Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., with a National Guard officer as an escort as other troops watch. (AP)
These cases represent a “defiance of federal law by state governments,” Tung Yin, professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, told PolitiFact.
“It’s not Portland police out there that are obstructing ICE or Oregon troops being deployed by Oregon Gov. (Tina) Kotek to interfere with ICE,” Yin said. “So I think that just makes the context look different.”
The most recent invocation came in 1992, when then-California Gov. Pete Wilson requested military support from President George H.W. Bush after riots broke out following the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King.
This is an example of a case “where local and state officials are completely and totally overwhelmed by the scale and scope of violence,” Christopher Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, said.
This level of mayhem is not in cities Trump has targeted for National Guard deployment, such as Portland and Chicago, where private citizens are protesting against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Two National guardsmen stand guard outside a burning donut shop at Martin Luther King Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles April 30, 1992. The National Guard was called in to aid police during the second day of rioting in the city. (AP)
Insurrection Act doesn’t give Trump ‘unquestioned power’
Trump also has made inaccurate claims about the scope of his authority when the Insurrection Act is in effect.
It doesn’t give the president “unquestioned power,” as Trump said.
“Presidents do not have unquestioned authority. They have limited authority that is available to them in very extraordinary circumstances, when there’s an insurrection,” Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, said.
Even during the Insurrection Act, people’s constitutional due process rights are protected, Mirasola said. Due process generally refers to the government’s requirement to follow fair procedures and laws.
Trump also exaggerated Oct. 19 when he told reporters there are “no more court cases” when the act is invoked. Courts can rule on whether the use of the Insurrection Act is legal, Meyler said. However, the act is broadly written and doesn’t define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president has exclusive power to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the law.
Our ruling
Trump said, “Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used” the Insurrection Act, “and that’s unquestioned power.”
The act has been used by 17, or 37%, of U.S. presidents. Most of those 30 invocations took place more than 100 years ago, so it’s not as frequent as Trump made it seem.
Legal experts said Trump’s focus on the numbers omits context about his proposed use of the act to stop protesting and crime. The act has been invoked to stop rebellions, white supremacist revolts and force state governments to follow federal laws regarding desegregation. The last president to use the act, Bush in 1992, did so in California at the request of the governor after riots broke out in Los Angeles.
He’s also wrong to say the law gives him “unquestioned power.” Due process rights under the constitution remain in place and courts can rule on the invocation’s legality, even if they’ve been historically deferential to a president’s use of the act.
His statement ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the statement Mostly False.
Portland resident says ICE agents entered home without a warrant – CBS News
Watch CBS News
A Portland resident is speaking out after she says immigration agents broke into her home without a warrant, looking for someone who didn’t live there. Camilo Montoya-Galvez reports.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed command of Oregon National Guard troops to the president Monday, further raising the stakes in the ongoing multifront judicial battle over military deployments to cities across the U.S.
A three-judge appellate panel — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — found that the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to dispatch soldiers domestically.
The judges found that when ordering a deployment, “The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts.”
The ruling was a stark contrast to a lower-court judge’s finding earlier this month.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her Oct. 4 temporary restraining order.
The appellate judges said they were guided by a precedent set in the 9th Circuit this summer, when California tried and failed to wrest back control of federalized soldiers in and around Los Angeles.
Another proceeding in California’s case is scheduled before the appellate court this week and the court’s earlier decision could be reversed. At the same time, an almost identical deployment in Illinois is under review by the Supreme Court.
For now, exactly which troops can deploy in Portland remains bitterly contested in U.S. District court, where Immergut blocked the administration from flooding Portland with Guardsmen from California.
The issue is likely to be decided by Supreme Court later this fall.
The judges who heard the Oregon case outlined the dueling legal theories in their opinions. The two members of the bench who backed Trump’s authority over the troops argued the law is straightforward.
“The President’s decision in this area is absolute,” wrote Judge Ryan D. Nelson, a Trump appointee, in a concurrence arguing that the court had overstepped its bounds in taking the case at all.
“Reasonable minds will disagree about the propriety of the President’s National Guard deployment in Portland,” Nelson wrote. “But federal courts are not the panacea to cure that disagreement—the political process is (at least under current Supreme Court precedent).”
Susan P. Graber, a Clinton appointee, said the appellate court had veered into parody.
“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” she wrote in her stinging dissent.
But the stakes of sending armed soldiers to American cities based on little more than “propaganda” are far higher, she wrote.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur,” Graber wrote. “Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”
