Federal judge blocks trump‘s National Guard call-up, Portland restraining order, President Trump blocked from sending National Guard, Portland federal judge restraining order, National Guard call-up halted in Portland

BREAKING: A federal judge has granted a restraining order blocking President Trump’s call-up of the National Guard in Portland.https://t.co/Oe3y7MWzuz pic.twitter.com/tulDzJR6Sm

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 4, 2025

• YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO WATCH THIS TRENDING STORY ON YOUTUBE.  Waverly Hills Hospital's Horror Story: The Most Haunted Room 502

In a recent development, a federal judge has issued a restraining order to block President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Portland. This decision comes amidst ongoing protests and civil unrest in the city, with concerns raised about the use of military force to quell demonstrations.

The restraining order, granted by the federal judge, puts a halt to the President’s call-up of the National Guard in Portland. This move is seen as a significant step in addressing the escalating tensions between law enforcement and protesters, as well as ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights to peaceful assembly.

The decision to block the deployment of the National Guard in Portland has been met with both support and criticism. Supporters of the restraining order argue that the use of military force in response to civil unrest can exacerbate tensions and lead to further violence. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the presence of the National Guard is necessary to maintain law and order in the city.

The restraining order comes at a critical juncture in the ongoing protests in Portland, which have been fueled by issues of police brutality, racial injustice, and systemic inequality. The decision by the federal judge to intervene and block the President’s call-up of the National Guard highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public safety and upholding constitutional rights.

As the situation in Portland continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how the restraining order will impact the dynamics between law enforcement, protesters, and the wider community. The decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that government actions are in line with the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

Overall, the granting of the restraining order to block President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Portland reflects the complexities of managing civil unrest and upholding constitutional rights in a democratic society. It is a reminder of the importance of checks and balances in safeguarding the fundamental freedoms and liberties of all citizens.

In a surprising turn of events, a federal judge has granted a restraining order blocking President Trump’s call-up of the National Guard in Portland. This decision comes amidst escalating tensions in the city, with protests against racial injustice and police brutality continuing to roil the streets. The move to deploy the National Guard had sparked fears of further violence and unrest, prompting swift legal action to prevent its implementation.

The restraining order, issued by the federal judge, effectively halts the President’s plans to deploy the National Guard in Portland. This decision is a significant victory for the protesters and civil rights advocates who have been calling for an end to the militarization of law enforcement in response to the demonstrations. It represents a crucial step towards de-escalating the situation and protecting the constitutional rights of those exercising their right to peaceful protest.

The ruling comes at a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over the role of federal forces in quelling civil unrest. President Trump’s decision to call up the National Guard in Portland had drawn widespread condemnation from lawmakers, civil rights groups, and local officials who argued that such a move was an overreach of federal authority and could lead to further violence. The federal judge’s decision to block this action sends a clear message that the rule of law must be upheld and that the rights of citizens to protest peacefully must be respected.

The restraining order is a temporary measure that will remain in place until a full hearing can be held to determine the legality of the President’s call-up of the National Guard in Portland. This hearing will provide an opportunity for both sides to present their arguments and for the court to make a final determination on the matter. In the meantime, the order stands as a safeguard against any immediate deployment of federal forces in the city.

The decision to block the call-up of the National Guard in Portland has been met with both praise and criticism. Supporters of the ruling see it as a necessary step to protect the rights of protesters and prevent the escalation of violence. Critics, on the other hand, argue that it undermines the President’s authority to maintain law and order and could embolden those who seek to disrupt the peace.

As the legal battle over the deployment of the National Guard in Portland continues to unfold, it is clear that the issue is far from settled. The outcome of the full hearing will have far-reaching implications for the future of federal intervention in civil unrest and the protection of constitutional rights. It is a case that will test the limits of executive power and the checks and balances of the American legal system.

In the meantime, the people of Portland continue to take to the streets to demand justice and accountability. The decision to block the call-up of the National Guard is a victory for those who believe in the power of peaceful protest and the importance of upholding the principles of democracy. It is a reminder that the voices of the people can still be heard and that the rule of law is the foundation of a free and just society.

Federal judge, restraining order, National Guard, Portland, President Trump, call-up, granted, blocking, court decision, legal action, government intervention, law enforcement, civil rights, protest response, emergency response, judicial ruling, temporary injunction, public safety, constitutional rights, legal challenge