By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump authorized the Secretary of Defense to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for 60 days to protect federal property, citing potential protests. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield condemned the move as an abuse of power, arguing that the President lacks the authority to federalize the guard under Title 10 of the United States Code, as no invasion or rebellion exists. The state swiftly filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to block the deployment, as the situation in Portland is being managed by local police, and the state officials believe the federalization is unnecessary and unlawful. This action mirrors a similar situation in California, and Oregon officials express concerns over the lack of details about the deployment plans and the President’s view of the state’s condition.
Read the original article here
Trump Assumes Control of the Oregon National Guard; Oregon Sues
The situation has escalated dramatically as Trump has moved to assert control over the Oregon National Guard, prompting a lawsuit from the state. It’s a bold move, and the potential implications are significant, setting up a tense legal and political showdown. The core argument from Oregon centers on the legality of this federalization. The state contends that existing laws only permit the federal government to take command of the National Guard under very specific circumstances: invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws cannot be enforced through other means. Oregon’s stance suggests they see this as an overreach, a direct violation of the established boundaries between state and federal authority.
The allegations suggest that Trump is trying to create a situation that would justify the deployment of the National Guard, perhaps by manufacturing a crisis or labeling peaceful activities as acts of rebellion. This tactic brings to mind historical parallels, like the outrage some Republicans expressed during the Obama administration over military exercises. The change in stance among some political factions is striking, highlighting the partisan divide and the importance of power. This shift is not overlooked, and it reinforces concerns about the politicization of the military.
Oregon could instruct their State Police to detain National Guardsmen who step onto non-federal land with weapons, or order its citizens to ignore the federal government’s orders. The possible consequences of such actions are potentially high, and the ensuing legal challenges are almost guaranteed. This resistance suggests that the state’s leadership is prepared to fight back, raising the stakes. The possibility of court-martialing members of the Guard who follow federal directives is a dramatic measure, demonstrating Oregon’s firm resolve.
The discussion moves from legal arguments to more immediate concerns, focusing on the potential impact on the people of Oregon. The implications are not lost on the people on the ground, as they remember prior events. The history of Portland makes it an interesting target and a symbol for the country.
The question of what actions are lawful by the federal government is the source of the battle. The legality of the federal government’s actions is at the heart of the dispute, which is likely to be challenged in court. This brings up many questions, which would challenge the established balance of power. The argument goes that if the federal government is the one instigating the “invasion” or “rebellion,” then this entire operation becomes an affront to the Constitution.
The history of Trump’s administration in places like Portland is brought into focus. The implication is that this is more than just a matter of enforcing laws; it’s about political posturing.
The response of the citizens to ignore the presence of the National Guard. This strategy could undermine the effectiveness of the federal deployment by preventing the establishment of a show of force. This move will surely cause unrest and increase the chance of protest.