deployment

US president’s controversial deployment of soldiers to US cities has raised alarm and a series of legal challenges.

A United States federal judge has said the Trump administration must pause its deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, DC, a setback for the president’s push to send the military into cities across the country.

US District Judge Jia Cobb temporarily suspended the deployment in a ruling on Thursday, responding to a lawsuit filed by city officials who said Trump had usurped policing powers and was using the military for domestic law enforcement.

The federal government has unique powers in Washington, DC. But the Trump administration has taken the controversial step to deploy soldiers in a growing list of Democrat-led cities, despite frequent protests from state and local officials and a lack of any emergency conditions.

Cobb, who said in her decision that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, gave the Trump administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

Lawyers for the government slammed the lawsuit that challenged the military deployment as a “frivolous stunt”.

“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

Trump has also deployed troops to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, in what he depicts as an effort to tackle crime and round up undocumented immigrants.

Residents and civil liberties groups have documented aggressive raids and what they say are widespread rights violations and racial profiling by federal agents during those crackdowns, in which US citizens have sometimes been swept up.

Trump has threatened to imprison local and state officials who criticise his deployment of the military.

A legal challenge filed in September by Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said that US democracy would “never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand”.

Trump ordered the first deployment in August, involving about 2,300 National Guard members from various states and hundreds of federal agents from various agencies.

Hundreds of National Guard troops deployed to Chicago and Portland, Ore., are being sent home, and those who will remain will continue to stay off the streets amid court battles over their deployment by the Trump administration, a defense official said Monday.

The withdrawal of soldiers — sent from California and Texas — is part of a larger change to troop deployments after President Trump began his immigration crackdown in various cities with Democratic leadership. The official requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

U.S. Northern Command said in a statement Sunday it was “shifting and/or rightsizing” units in Portland, Los Angeles and Chicago. Although it said there would be a “constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”

In the coming days, 200 California National Guard troops currently deployed to Oregon will be sent home, and about 100 will remain in the Portland area doing training, the official said. The military also plans to cut in half the number of Oregon National Guard troops on deployment there from 200 soldiers to 100, the official said.

About 200 Texas National Guard troops in Chicago also are being sent home and about 200 soldiers will be on standby at Fort Bliss, an Army base that stretches across parts of Texas and New Mexico, the official said.

About 300 Illinois National Guard troops will remain in the Chicago area, also doing training, but they currently are not legally allowed to conduct operations with the Department of Homeland Security, the official said.

The official said the upcoming holiday season may have played a role in the change in deployments.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said Trump “never should have illegally deployed our troops in the first place.”

“We’re glad they’re finally coming home,” she wrote in an email. “It’s long overdue!”

Separately, the Trump administration has stepped up immigration enforcement in Charlotte, North Carolina, expanding an aggressive campaign that’s been spearheaded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

National Guard deployments have been one of the most controversial initiatives of Trump’s second term, demonstrating an expanded willingness to use the military to accomplish domestic goals.

Troops, including active-duty Marines, were deployed to Los Angeles during immigration protests earlier this year.

The National Guard was also sent to Washington, D.C., where they were part of a broader federal intervention that Trump claimed was necessary because of crime problems.

The deployments later expanded to Portland and Chicago.

Although they don’t play a law enforcement role, members of the National Guard have been tasked with protecting federal facilities, particularly those run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

About 100 troops who have been in Los Angeles will remain on deployment, the defense official said.

Watson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Chris Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.

Arrival of US aircraft carrier off Latin America fuels speculation that US could try to overthrow Venezuelan government.

The Venezuelan government has said it is preparing its armed forces in the event of an invasion or military attack by the United States.

A statement shared by Minister of People’s Power for Defence Vladimir Padrino on Tuesday said that the preparations include the “massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval, riverine and missile forces”, as well as the participation of police, militias and citizens’ units.

The announcement comes as the arrival of a US aircraft carrier in the region fuels speculation of possible military action aimed at collapsing the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a longtime US rival.

Tensions between the two countries have escalated since the return of US President Donald Trump for a second term in January.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon confirmed that the Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group — which includes the world’s largest aircraft carrier — had arrived in the Caribbean Sea, bearing at least 4,000 sailors as well as “tactical aircraft”.

In recent weeks, the US government has also surged troops to areas near the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Panama and Trinidad and Tobago, for training exercises and other operations.

The Trump administration has framed such deployments as necessary “to disrupt illicit drug trafficking and protect the homeland”. Trump officials have also accused Maduro of masterminding the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang with a relatively modest presence in the US.

But Maduro and his allies have accused the US of “imperialistic” aims.

Questions remain, however, about whether Venezuela is equipped to fend off any US military advances.

Experts say the Maduro government has sought to project an image of military preparedness in the face of a large buildup of US forces in the Caribbean, but it could face difficulties from a lack of personnel and up-to-date equipment.

While the government has used possible US intervention to rally support, Maduro is also struggling with widespread discontent at home and growing diplomatic isolation following a contested election in 2024, marred by allegations of widespread fraud and a crackdown on protesters.

The military buildup in the Caribbean region began after the start of a series of US military strikes on September 2.

The US has carried out at least 19 air strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing approximately 75 people.

Trump has suggested that land strikes “are going to be next”. But when asked in late October whether he was considering attacks within Venezuela, Trump replied, “No”.

Legal experts say that a military attack on Venezuela would likely violate international law, and recent polling from the research firm YouGov suggests that about 47 percent of people in the US would oppose land attacks on Venezuelan territory. About 19 percent, meanwhile, say they would support such attacks.

While Venezuela’s armed forces have expressed support for Maduro and said they would resist a US attack, the Reuters news agency has reported that the government has struggled to provide members of the armed forces with adequate food and supplies.

The use of additional paramilitary and police forces could represent an effort to plug the holes in Venezuela’s lacklustre military capacity. Reuters reported that a government memo includes plans for small units at about 280 locations, where they could use sabotage and guerrilla tactics for “prolonged resistance” against any potential US incursion.

A judge on Monday allowed the continued deployment of more than 300 West Virginia National Guard members to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., as part of President Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities.

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Richard D. Lindsay made the ruling after hearing arguments in a lawsuit by a civic organization that argued Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority when he authorized the Guard’s deployment in August.

“The question before this court is whether or not state law allows West Virginia to do this,” Lindsay said. “… This court believes that the federal law allows for the request made by the president to the governor.”

West Virginia is among several states that sent National Guard members to the nation’s capital. While the state National Guard has said its deployment could last until the end of November, it is consulting with the governor’s office and others on the possibility of extending the stay.

Formal orders were issued last week extending the deployment of the District of Columbia’s National Guard in the city through the end of February.

“We are pleased with the judge’s decision,” Jace Goins, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, said outside the court in Charleston. “The National Guard are going nowhere. They’re staying in D.C. They’re not going to be redeployed to West Virginia.

“The judge made the determination that the governor made a lawful decision deploying the National Guard to D.C. by a lawful request of the president.”

The West Virginia Citizen Action Group, which filed the lawsuit, argued that under state law, the governor could deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

The civic group claimed that it was harmed by the deployment by being forced to refocus its resources away from government accountability and transparency. The state attorney general’s office sought to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacked standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.

“It was a simple issue of a broad, lawful request by the president and a lawful deployment by the governor. That’s all,” Goins said.

Aubrey Sparks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s West Virginia chapter, said she didn’t believe it was the correct decision.

“I think that West Virginia law is clear,” Sparks said. “I think what the state was permitted to do here is to skirt past West Virginia law simply because Trump asked them to. And that’s not how the law works. We remain deeply concerned about it.”

Trump issued an executive order in August declaring a crime emergency in the nation’s capital, although the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

Separately, a federal judge heard arguments Oct. 24 on District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb ’s request for an order that would remove National Guard members from Washington streets. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Biden, did not rule from the bench.

Raby writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.