President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Saturday to announce a significant escalation in his approach to handling protests and unrest, specifically directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon. Trump stated, “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” indicating a willingness to use military might against American citizens in response to civil demonstrations.
This unprecedented move comes on the heels of previous military deployments to cities such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis. In Los Angeles, a federal court ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was illegal, raising serious questions about the legality of his actions. Now, as tensions simmer in Portland—home to ongoing protests against an ICE facility—Mayor Keith Wilson expressed his concerns about the increased presence of federal agents in the city. “We did not ask for them to come,” Wilson stated at a news conference, referring to the federal agents as being “here without precedent or purpose.”
The response from Oregon’s political leaders has been swift and critical. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) condemned Trump’s actions, characterizing Portland as a “peaceful, vibrant city with no need for federal agents on our streets.” He urged Oregonians to resist falling into what he described as Trump’s attempt to incite violence.
Legally, Trump’s authority to send troops to American cities without state approval is highly questionable. Historically, presidents have tread lightly in this domain; for instance, Abraham Lincoln only deployed troops during the Civil War in response to genuine emergencies. Trump’s justification for military action, however, has been criticized as based on fabricated crises. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strictly prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, and in September, a federal district judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of active-duty troops in Los Angeles violated this law. Judge Charles Breyer warned that Trump was “creating a national police force with the president as its chief,” a chilling prospect for civil liberties.
In a further controversial move, Trump issued an executive order declaring “Antifa” a domestic terrorism organization. Critics highlight that Antifa is not a formal organization but rather a loosely organized movement opposing far-right extremism, including neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups that have incited violence in cities like Portland.
Chip Gibbons, a civil liberties advocate and critic of excessive law enforcement measures, described Trump’s executive order as “extremely disturbing.” Gibbons noted that it could enable a federal crackdown on progressive groups and individuals, adding that “the national security state is a wonderful tool for a skilled authoritarian to crush American democracy.” He expressed a deep concern about the powers that Trump has amassed, emphasizing the potential for significant harm to democratic institutions.
The implications of Trump’s military threats extend beyond Portland. They signal a broader strategy that could lead to increased federal intervention in cities across the country, especially in areas where protests are rampant. This approach raises fundamental questions about the balance of power, civil rights, and the role of federal law enforcement in local governance.
As this situation unfolds, the progressive community remains vigilant, recognizing the potential dangers posed by an administration willing to disregard the rule of law in favor of authoritarian control. The events in Portland could serve as a litmus test for how far Trump is willing to go in suppressing dissent and whether the American public will stand by as their rights come under siege.
