In response to the Oregonian protests in October against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), President Donald Trump proposed the idea to deploy the National Guard into Portland to address what he perceives as “domestic terrorism.” Although the U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut halted the deployment, Portland federal officers stationed in Portland would deploy tear gas near the ICE facility as an escalated “crowd control tactic” and employed the arrival of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to visit Portland.  

     According to the Oregon Public Broadcasting, Noem’s visit, given her position as the Homeland Security Secretary, was to “portray the city of [Portland] as chaotic.”

     The legal debate in favor of or against Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was followed by multiple court procedures. While Trump did deploy the National Guard at the Portland ICE building on October 29th without Immergaut’s authorization, the most recent update on the National Guard deployment situation is in November; when Immergaut permanently barred Trump’s National Guard deployment to control ICE protests.

     Although the National Guard deployment in Portland may have ended as a legal debate, the ongoing viewpoints in favor of or against Trump’s deployment of the National Guard go beyond the courtrooms.

     For instance, there’s the question of whether Trump’s use of the National Guard is constitutional.

     On one hand, Trump asserted his right to deploy the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a U.S. law that grants a president the authority to control the National Guard in response to a foreign invasion or rebellion, or as a last resort to execute federal laws. In addition, he also referenced the Insurrection Act of 1807, which grants presidential authority to control the National Guard if there are “unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States.” For both laws, Trump used the ICE protests as a justification to deploy the National Guard.

     On the other hand, both the State of Oregon and Portland’s lawsuit against Trump stated that he violated the Posse Comitatus Act. This act bars the military from performing actions within the civil government by employing the National Guard to control ICE protests when the Oregon Police had previously stated they had no issue managing the protest. 

     Outside of specific laws, some public figures are mixed on what extent Trump can or should deploy the National Guard. 

     For instance, White House Press Secretary Karoline Levitt defended Trump’s decision and asserted that he not only had “legal authority,” but would win the case “on the merits of law.” This captures the sentiment expressed by supporters of Trump’s deployment, that his proposal captured one of his presidential duties. In their opinion, Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was just a measure to protect the country from civic unrest. 

     However, Dan Reyfield, the 18th Oregon Attorney General and prominent opponent against the National Guard deployment, described President Donald Trump’s proposal as “the President flexing political muscle under the guise of law and order.” A statement that illustrates some opponents of the National Guard deployment who believe that President Trump is abusing his executive power and was deploying unnecessary control against what some cited to be peaceful protests against ICE. 

     Ultimately, the answer to this debate may lie in what a person believes the president’s role is in handling civil protests, such as those against ICE. 

     For instance, while I understand the concerns that the ICE protests can escalate to unnecessary violence against Portland citizens, I also believe that Trump should have heeded the Portland Police’s opinion and ceased all military action when the department stated that they could manage the ICE protests in Portland without assistance. Meanwhile, I also think that Trump should have considered that public concerns regarding unnecessary military force can also escalate Portland protests, which seems counterintuitive to his plan to prevent civic disorder from happening. 

Sources:

Why is Trump trying to deploy the National Guard to US cities? 

A timeline of Trump’s focus on Portland – OPB 

Oregon Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Federalization of National Guard 

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General – Oregon Department of Justice 

Explaining the two historical acts in the National Guard controversy | Constitution Center