Newsom Seeks Court Order to Halt Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Oregon

California Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to seek a court order to halt President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops from California to Oregon. This action, he described as a “breathtaking abuse” of power, involved sending 300 personnel to Portland, which the President labeled “war-ravaged.”

Legal Context and Implications

The President’s move followed a federal judge’s temporary block on federalizing the state’s National Guard. Constitutional law experts criticized the deployment as an attempt to circumvent Judge Karin Immergut’s ruling. Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center highlighted the absence of legal grounds for deploying federalized troops without state governor consent.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor, added that this situation lacks historical precedent. She emphasized that it is unusual for a President to send National Guard troops from one state to another against the wishes of local officials.

Background to Trump’s Actions

President Trump mobilized California’s National Guard in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles in June. He has also implemented military interventions in cities like Chicago and Washington, claiming they are necessary to combat crime. Local leaders, however, argue these actions are unjustifiable.

Reactions from State Officials

In response, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield stated the state does not require military assistance and is preparing to challenge Trump’s order. He criticized the President’s intent to increase military presence in American cities.

• Citing a need to uphold the law, Rayfield said, “This President is obviously hellbent on deploying the military in American cities.”
• Goitein indicated that deploying troops under current conditions is illegal, based on Immergut’s detailed ruling.

Potential Consequences of the Legal Challenge

If California’s legal efforts fail, it could embolden federal actions in other states. Levinson warned that the Trump administration might replicate this maneuver elsewhere, posing risks to state governance.

Amid ongoing protests in Portland, which have decreased in size compared to previous years, Judge Immergut acknowledged that the situation did not warrant federal troop deployment.

Concerns Over Federal Authority

Officials have highlighted concerns about the implications of deploying National Guard troops across state lines without proper authorization. Newsom emphasized that this move is more about power than public safety, equating it to using the military as a political weapon.

The Governor’s escalating criticisms of Trump included statements regarding higher education policies that could influence federal funding based on political alignment. Newsom’s rhetoric reflects a broader concern about the erosion of democratic principles in the current political landscape.

This ongoing legal battle illustrates significant tensions between state and federal powers. It represents a crucial moment for state governors standing against federal overreach, particularly in the realm of law enforcement and public safety.