UPDATE – Oct. 23, 2025. 4:35 p.m. – Quote attributed to Professor Bost changed from “…Order and rhetoric…” to “…Law and order rhetoric…”.
President Trump announced plans to deploy troops in Portland, OR, on Truth Social on September 27, 2025. As he continues to deploy the National Guard in US cities, including Chicago, IL, city and state governments respond with blocks to military presence.
These actions follow previous deployments in cities like Los Angeles, CA and Washington, D.C. in August 2025 after Trump declared a “public safety emergency.” In the span of four months, Trump has called for federal involvement in almost a dozen democratic cities.
On September 28, President Trump activated troops in Portland, OR, citing “ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa” as a primary reason for deploying and mobilizing the National Guard.
Contrary to Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding protests against ICE in Portland, Dorothea Orth-Smith, a class of 2025 Whitman alum and Portland resident, feels that the city remains peaceful.
“Portland legislators […] and the Portland media have been pretty good at [communicating that], in this case […] as much as protesting seems like it would be useful, specifically protesting the National Guard, it’s just giving [the Trump administration and National Guard] an excuse to mobilize against people and will make things worse in some ways.” Orth-Smith said.
Professor of Rhetoric, Writing and Public Discourse Matthew Bost echoed many of these sentiments.
“What Trump is doing is definitely a fear appeal. And I think a lot of the protesters are […] trying to appeal to […] more joyful emotions,” Bost said.
According to Bost, Trump employs a fearful rhetoric which contrasts current protests in Portland, like the naked bike ride protest on October 13.
“All of this [rhetoric] is tied up with […] racialized appeals around policing. Law and order and rhetoric that describe cities as war zones, that use some of the terms that Trump has used, […] there’s a fear of [the] urban that is also often racialized or racially coded,” said Bost.
Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s Press Secretary, claimed in a press briefing that the administration would consider cutting federal funding to Portland due to “refusal to work with the White House to crack down on street crime and immigration enforcement.” Despite Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the criminal status of Portland, many locals say this is an exaggeration from the President to push a political agenda.
Trump expressed similar sentiments when addressing the lack of response from Chicago’s elected officials to protect ICE officers on October 8, 2025 via Truth Social: “Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers! Governor Pritzker also!”
Trump has even threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to employ active duty military in states that are experiencing an insurrection that is deemed out of their control. However, U.S. District Judge April Perry said, “I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.”
Nicole Simek, professor of Philosophy and Literature, Indigeneity, Race and Ethic Studies and Gender studies compared Trump’s rhetoric with previous U.S. presidential administrations.
“I think immediately of George W. Bush’s administration, which launched a rhetorical and material ‘War on Terror.’ This administration leaned heavily on labels like ‘terrorist’ and ‘Axis of Evil,’” Simek said. “But it also used sanitizing terms and new legal categories, such as such as ‘enhanced interrogation’ and ‘enemy combatant,’ to portray brutal torture tactics and the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial as reasonable, clinically sound necessities in this ‘war.’”
Simek observed that, as Trump categorizes various U.S. cities as dangerous or compliant to his agenda, he labels them with binary, distinct language.
“This recent era gives us some stark examples of the way in which executive powers use demonizing language tarring opponents’ very being,” Simek said.
On October 4, Trump mobilized 300 Illinois National Guard members as well as roughly 200 members of the Texas National Guard in Chicago. However, this intervention was short lived as Federal Judge April Perry in Chicago temporarily blocked the move for 14 days. She determined the move was unconstitutional, violating the 10th and 14th amendment, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act, which checks the military’s role in domestic enforcement.
Perry also raised concerns over the competency of the National Guard in de-escalation tactics. On October 11, a federal appeals court amended conditions of this block as they “lifted [the] order blocking White House efforts to federalize National Guard troops for use in Chicago, but left … [the] block on their deployment in the city.”
In Portland, similar battles continue to challenge the legality of military presence in the city. On October 4, the state of Oregon and the city of Portland sued the Trump administration and requested a temporary restraining order that would effectively block the deployment of troops. Judge Karin Immergut approved a block against Trump’s initial activation of the National Guard troops. In response, Trump attempted to send National Guard troops from California and Texas, which was also blocked by the judge.
The status of military presence and their legality is still unfolding, and the manner in which these legal proceedings play out will set a formative precedent for future federal involvement in individual states.
