On September 29, Chief Bob Day of the Portland Police Bureau expressed his bewilderment regarding President Donald Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard to Portland.
Day noted, “This is one city block,” referring to the area around the ICE detention center that has been the focal point of recent peaceful protests. “The city of Portland is 145 square miles. And even the events that are happening down there do not rise to the level of attention that they are receiving.”
In contrast, President Trump asserted his position in a post on Truth Social, stating, “I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” He ominously added that he was “authorizing full force, if necessary.”
Annie Hood, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, frequently drives past the protests. “The ICE protests have been focused now in a pretty discreet part of the South waterfront,” Hood explained. She speculated that Trump may have conflated these focused protests with the broader movements seen during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations. “He got confused, perhaps.”
Local leaders have voiced significant opposition to Trump’s decision to deploy 200 National Guard troops to Portland. Governor Tina Kotek and 17 mayors from across Oregon, including Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson, have publicly denounced the move.
On October 1, Trump claimed troops were already “in place” in the city, a statement quickly contradicted by local news reports indicating that it could take several days for the deployment to occur.
In light of these developments, the state and city launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Attorney General Rayfield stated on September 28, “Oregon communities are stable, and our local officials have been clear: We have the capacity to manage public safety without federal interference.”
He further emphasized, “Sending in 200 National Guard troops to guard a single building is not normal. If you had a concern about safety at your own home, you’d make a few calls and fill the gaps—not call in an army.”
Rayfield suggested that the motivations behind Trump’s actions might extend beyond public safety, hinting at a political agenda. “What we’re seeing is not about public safety; it’s about the President flexing political muscle under the guise of law and order, chasing a media hit at the expense of our community.”
Hood expressed her concerns regarding the potential implications of a National Guard deployment on vulnerable populations, including unhoused individuals and those who use drugs in Portland. “Oregon has been a complicated place to be unhoused in the past few years,” she remarked, noting how the criminalization of behaviors associated with homelessness has intensified.
“Any time you have more policing, vulnerable people are impacted first,” she added, highlighting the adverse effects that increased military presence could have on those in crisis.
Dr. Phillip Atiba Solomon, co-founder and CEO of the Center for Policing Equity, echoed these sentiments, asserting that Trump’s militarized responses jeopardize rather than enhance public safety, particularly for marginalized communities. He stated, “These continued actions by the Trump Administration, despite decreasing rates of crime, nullify the will of voters and local elected officials. It replaces local accountability with a system of federal force, escalating conflict and endangering the very communities and officers it claims to protect.”
Solomon underscored the damaging implications of this approach: “This is a weaponization of law enforcement against people in crisis,” he said. “These deployments will harm housing-insecure people, as well as those suffering from mental health issues, treating them as enemies to be eradicated from society, rather than neighbors in need of support and care. Make no mistake, this is the politics of division and domination, not that of safety.”
This latest deployment follows past incidents where federal forces were sent to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., under similar pretexts of maintaining order during protests. In June, federal troops deployed to Los Angeles were criticized for targeting both protestors and unhoused individuals, culminating in a public outcry over their presence.
In a troubling pattern, Trump has directed military and law enforcement resources to cities governed by Democratic leadership, which he has labeled as unsafe, suggesting an ongoing campaign against what he terms “blue cities.”
On September 30, in an unprecedented address to over 800 military officials, Trump warned of a new military role concerning cities controlled by the “radical left Democrats,” claiming they had made those environments unsafe. “We’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” he pledged, framing this endeavor as a war.
As the situation in Portland continues to develop, local officials and citizens remain wary of the implications of federal intervention. This increasingly militarized response to civic unrest raises fundamental questions about federal authority and local governance, particularly in communities already struggling with socioeconomic challenges.
image source from：filtermag
