WASHINGTON D.C. – A United States federal judge on Friday, 7 November 2025, issued a permanent injunction barring the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops to manage protests in Portland, Oregon. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, herself a nominee of President Donald Trump during his first term, marks a significant judicial check on executive authority and reinforces the legal barriers separating military and domestic law enforcement.

The decision is a major setback for the administration's strategy of using federal forces to intervene in cities, a tactic that has drawn widespread condemnation from local officials and civil rights advocates. The case arose after President Trump announced in late September his intention to deploy troops to the city, which he described as “war ravaged,” in response to protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. The city of Portland and the states of Oregon and California subsequently filed a lawsuit to block the move.

In her 106-page order, Judge Immergut concluded that the legal conditions for such a deployment had not been met. She found there was no evidence of a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government, which is a requirement under the federal law President Trump sought to invoke. The judge stated that the president’s claims were “simply untethered to the facts” and that he “did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.”

Global Precedent and Kenyan Context

The ruling resonates globally, particularly in nations grappling with the appropriate use of security forces during public demonstrations. The principle at the heart of the U.S. case is the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that broadly prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. This law reflects a long-standing American tradition of maintaining a clear separation between military and civilian policing roles.

This legal framework offers a comparative lens for Kenya, which has its own constitutional and statutory provisions governing the internal deployment of the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF). Under Article 241 of the Kenyan Constitution, the KDF can be deployed to restore peace in any part of the country affected by unrest or to assist the National Police Service in emergencies. However, such deployments are subject to strict legal guardrails. The Kenya Defence Forces Act mandates that any deployment to restore peace requires prior approval from the National Assembly. When supporting the police, the deployment must adhere to constitutional standards on human rights, and the Cabinet Secretary for Defence must gazette the commencement of the operation within 24 hours. Recent debates and court challenges in Kenya concerning KDF deployment have highlighted the judiciary's role in ensuring these procedures are lawfully followed, mirroring the oversight seen in the Portland case.

Broader Political Turmoil in the U.S.

The court’s decision was delivered amidst a turbulent political backdrop in the United States. On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to temporarily block a lower court order that would have forced the full funding of nutrition benefits for 42 million lower-income Americans. The funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been disrupted by a protracted government shutdown, which began on 1 October 2025, and has become the longest in U.S. history. The shutdown stems from a failure by Congress to pass necessary spending bills, a situation President Trump has urged Republican senators to resolve. These compounding crises—a battle over executive power, a government funding impasse, and threats to social safety nets—paint a picture of a deeply divided nation where the roles and limits of government institutions are being intensely contested in the courts and in the political arena.