Newsom Says Trump Administration Deployed California National Guard Troops to Oregon

Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Trump Administration Has Deployed California National Guard Troops to Oregon

Move comes a day after judge blocks deployment of Oregon’s own Guard units

October 5, 2025 Sacramento, Calif. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Saturday that the Trump administration has ordered California National Guard troops across state lines to Oregon, a day after a federal judge blocked the president’s earlier plan to deploy Oregon’s own Guard forces to Portland.

Newsom called the move “an outrageous and illegal abuse of federal power” and said the deployment occurred without his authorization or prior notice. He accused the White House of using California’s military resources to “circumvent a court order” and inflame political tensions in the Pacific Northwest.

“The president is attempting an end-run around the judiciary and state sovereignty,” Newsom said during a Saturday press conference in Sacramento. “Let me be clear, these are California troops, not federal pawns. Their deployment to another state without consent is unlawful.”

The Background

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Salazar issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from sending Oregon National Guard troops into Portland, ruling that the move lacked sufficient legal justification and may have violated the Posse Comitatus Act and constitutional limits on federal power.

But within 24 hours of that decision, multiple officials in both California and Oregon said they had received confirmation that federal orders were issued overnight directing certain California Guard units, typically used for disaster response and training, to “assist in maintaining federal property security” in Portland.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said roughly 180 personnel were mobilized from the 129th Rescue Wing, based at Moffett Field near San Jose, and were being reassigned under federal Title 10 status, which allows the president to activate state forces for national missions.

White House and Defense Officials Respond

White House Press Secretary Karla Daniels defended the move, saying the president had the authority to activate Guard troops “to protect federal facilities and employees” when local and state governments “refuse to enforce the law.”

“The administration is acting fully within its legal authority,” Daniels said in a statement. “California troops are serving the federal mission they swore an oath to uphold.”

A senior Defense Department official added that the decision was coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security, citing what they described as “persistent threats” to federal buildings and immigration offices in Portland following protests earlier in the week.

Oregon Officials Push Back

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, who filed the initial lawsuit that led to the court’s injunction, said the deployment of California troops into Oregon territory “appears to directly violate” the spirit of that ruling.

“If the federal government believes it can simply import another state’s Guard to evade judicial oversight, it’s mistaken,” Kotek said. “We will challenge this in court immediately.”

Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU of Oregon, echoed those concerns, warning that the maneuver could set a precedent for the White House to federalize state troops for political or partisan purposes.

Legal Experts: ‘A Constitutional Grey Zone’

Legal analysts say the situation touches on untested areas of federal authority. Under Title 10, the president can nationalize state Guard troops during certain emergencies or national security crises, but those powers have traditionally been invoked with state cooperation.

“What’s unusual here is the combination of a judicial injunction and a cross-state activation,” said Dr. Julian Mercer, a professor of constitutional law at UC Berkeley. “It puts us in a grey zone that could have major implications for civil-military relations.”

Political Fallout

Newsom’s remarks quickly reverberated through Washington, where Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of “defying a federal court” and “misusing the National Guard for political theater.”

Republicans, meanwhile, largely defended the president’s authority, arguing that local leaders in Oregon have “lost control” of the situation and that federal action was necessary.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement that “protecting federal employees and property is a constitutional duty,” adding that the president “has every right to act where governors have failed.”

A Centrist Take: Federal Power Meets State Boundaries

From a centrist perspective, the clash reflects a deeper tension between national authority and state autonomy, a recurring theme in U.S. governance.

While the federal government has a legitimate interest in protecting its personnel and facilities, bypassing state consent and judicial oversight risks eroding the balance of power that underpins the American system.

The coming days, and likely, the courts, will determine whether the president’s move is a lawful assertion of executive power or a breach of constitutional restraint.