Oregon Senators Condemn Trump’s Threat to Militarize Portland, Warn of “Authoritarian Takeover”
In a swift and forceful rebuke, Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden publicly denounced former President Donald Trump’s announcement that he would dispatch troops to Portland. The senators characterized the move as a dangerous overreach and an attempt to subvert local control and civil liberties.
On September 27, Trump declared on social media that he was directing the Department of Defense to deploy troops to Portland to protect ICE facilities and confront what he termed “domestic terrorists” — specifically naming “Antifa” as a threat. He claimed the city was “war-ravaged” and authorized the use of “full force, if necessary.” The Guardian+3AP News+3The Washington Post+3
Sen. Wyden: “Launching an Authoritarian Takeover”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon blasted the move on social media, accusing Trump of attempting to provoke conflict in his hometown and labeling the deployment an “authoritarian takeover.” Wyden urged Oregonians to reject the administration’s framing of Portland as besieged.
“Trump is launching an authoritarian takeover of Portland … I urge Oregonians to reject Trump’s attempt to incite violence in what we know is a vibrant and peaceful city.” AP News+3TIME+3The Washington Post+3
Wyden’s remarks reflect alarm not only at the practical implications of deploying troops onto domestic soil, but also at the symbolic weight such an action carries in terms of executive authority and coercive power.
Sen. Merkley: “Don’t Take the Bait”
Senator Jeff Merkley also responded sharply, accusing Trump of seeking to “do a number” on Portland by stoking fear and chaos.
“Trump is sending troops to Portland with the goal of ‘doing a number’ on the city. We know what this means. He wants to stoke fear and chaos and trigger violent interactions and riots to justify expanded authoritarian control.” Yahoo News+2AOL+2
Merkley added a warning: “Let’s not take the bait! Portland is peaceful and strong and we will take care of each other.” Comic Sands+1
Both senators framed their critique not merely as partisan rhetoric but as a defense of constitutional limits and local governance.
Legal Pushback: Oregon Sues to Block Deployment
Simultaneously with the senators’ public statements, the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit seeking to block the deployment, arguing that the order is illegal and predicated on false claims of chaos. The Guardian+2AP News+2 Governor Tina Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and Portland leadership have all criticized the deployment as an unlawful seizure of the Oregon National Guard without a valid emergency. TIME+4The Guardian+4AP News+4
A Pentagon memo, obtained by news outlets, indicated that 200 National Guard troops would be federalized for a 60-day deployment under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The Guardian+2AP News+2 The state lawsuit contends that conditions in Portland do not meet the statutory threshold for federal intervention under this provision, which traditionally requires foreign invasion, rebellion, or the president’s incapacity to enforce laws with ordinary resources. Democracy Docket+1
Local Law Enforcement Disputes Trump’s Narrative
In court filings, Oregon and Portland officials challenged the administration’s portrayal of the situation on the ground—arguing that protests at the ICE facility have been minimal, largely peaceful, and manageable by local authorities. Democracy Docket+2The Guardian+2 Craig Dobson, a Portland police official, testified that nightly protests often involve fewer than 30 people and that law enforcement responded only rarely. He warned that deploying troops could backfire by intensifying unrest. Democracy Docket Cameron Bailey, a captain with the Oregon State Police, confirmed that the Portland Police Bureau had not requested additional federal help, indicating that local resources were sufficient. Democracy Docket
Local mayors across Oregon joined the chorus of opposition. Seventeen mayors issued a joint condemnation of the proposed deployment, deeming it aggressive, unnecessary, and inconsistent with the needs and now relatively calm state of Portland. Politico Portland’s current mayor, Keith Wilson, declared that “the number of troops that we want or need is zero.” Politico
Constitutional, Legal & Political Stakes
Trump’s announcement has triggered debate over whether he is stretching executive power impermissibly. Critics point to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement, as well as precedent that courts can review presidential decisions to federalize the National Guard. Democracy Docket+2The Washington Post+2 In a prior deployment to Los Angeles, a Ninth Circuit panel rejected arguments that the president’s decision was immune from review, stating that federalization requires more grounded justification than mere assertions. Democracy Docket+1
Additionally, use of force in a political setting raises concerns about chilling free speech, assembly rights, and constitutional protections of protest. The optics of militarizing a city widely known for progressive politics and activism have fueled fears among civil liberties advocates that this is not law enforcement but political intimidation.
Politically, the move fits a pattern: over the summer, Trump directed or threatened troop deployments in several U.S. cities—including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3AP News+3 Analysts see the Portland deployment as part of a broader strategy to penalize “blue” or Democratic-led states by deploying military resources selectively in cities opposed to Trump’s policies. Wikipedia+3The Washington Post+3AP News+3
Reaction & Next Moves
On social media and in public statements, Merkley and Wyden’s stark characterization has helped galvanize opposition to the deployment beyond Oregon. Their framing of Trump’s move as an “authoritarian takeover” has drawn national attention to what some see as a dangerous precedent—military force used not just against insurrection or invasion, but against domestic dissent.
The state’s lawsuit will now face judicial scrutiny. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee, is assigned the case, and a hearing is expected in the coming days. Democracy Docket+2The Guardian+2 Legal observers will carefully watch whether the court will block or enjoin the deployment, and whether the Ninth Circuit might be called on to clarify limits on executive power.
Meanwhile, Portland residents and local officials have mobilized protests, marches, and public statements reinforcing that civic life is calm and manageable. The Washington Post+3Politico+3The Guardian+3 Some argue Trump’s depiction of chaos is based on replaying old protest footage from 2020, intentionally conflating past unrest with current conditions. TIME+3The Guardian+3AP News+3
If troops arrive despite local opposition, tension is likely to escalate. The scenario ahead suggests a face-off: federal military power versus state and local governance, with the judiciary as the possible referee.
Conclusion
Oregon’s senators have forcefully rejected President Trump’s plan to send troops to Portland, framing it as a brazen attempt at “authoritarian takeover” rather than legitimate security intervention. Alongside legal action by the state and stinging criticism from law enforcement and local officials, the showdown over troop deployment is shaping into a high-stakes constitutional battle. Whether the courts will uphold or block the order remains uncertain—but for now, Merkley, Wyden, and Oregon’s leaders are making clear: Portland will not be militarized quietly.
