Portland police say Trump's troop deployment inflamed protests

By Jack Queen and Dietrich Knauth

Portland police testified on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order to deploy National Guard troops in their city inflamed protests and increased violence, in a trial over whether the troop deployment was legal.

The Portland trial, before U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, marks the first time a judge weighs evidence about whether protests at an immigration facility constituted a rebellion or prevented federal agents from enforcing the law in a way that justified a military deployment. The trial does not involve a jury.

Troops are currently blocked from being deployed to Portland, under a ruling by Immergut earlier this month.

Portland police Commander Franz Schoening testified that protests were mild in September, but grew larger after Trump's announcement that troops were headed to Portland, Oregon's largest city.

Even with larger protests, little violence was directed at federal officers, who sometimes used excessive force to drive protests away from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters in Portland, Schoening said.

In one incident on October 18, federal officers tried to fire tear gas or smoke from a launcher at protesters in the driveway of the ICE building, but they missed and the tear gas canister skipped up onto the roof of the ICE building, Schoening said. Federal officers on the roof started retaliating by firing tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd, hitting local police officers as well as protesters, Schoening said.

The use of tear gas, in particular, was "startling," and it would be impermissible for local police under Oregon law, Schoening said.

After large protests in Portland in 2020, Oregon passed laws preventing police from using tear gas for crowd control unless confronted by "a riot." Schoening said protests have not reached that level since mid-June.

Portland's attorney Caroline Turco said during opening statements on Wednesday that the evidence will show that protests in Portland were not violent and did not justify deployment of the National Guard.

"This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law," Turco said.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton said National Guard troops were needed after a summer of protests impeded immigration enforcement efforts.

"For months, agitators have used violence and threatened violence against the men and women who served our country by working for the Department of Homeland Security here in Oregon," Hamilton said.

CLAIMS OF VIOLENCE

The City of Portland and the Oregon attorney general’s office sued the Trump administration and accused it of acting unlawfully by moving to deploy troops, based on exaggerated claims of violence at protests against Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Portland is one of several cities led by Democrats, including Los Angeles and Chicago, where the Republican president has deployed the National Guard in recent months, breaking with a centuries-old taboo against using troops on American soil. Trump says troops are needed to combat what he describes as out-of-control protests disrupting federal immigration enforcement.

Democrats have said the president is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies like an invasion or armed rebellion.

STARKLY DIFFERENT PICTURES

Each side presented starkly different pictures of the protests, which peaked in June and have centered on an immigration detention facility.

Demonstrators have mostly been peaceful but have periodically clashed with agents and police seeking to clear them out.

Justice Department lawyers pressed state and local police witnesses to explain why they didn't respond more forcefully to protesters who threw rocks at officers, blocked entry to the ICE facility and engaged in vandalism in June.

Oregon state police Captain Cameron Bailey testified that he disapproved of a slow police response to a June 14 protest that became a riot. That night, rioters engaged in "cat and mouse" games in which they harassed ICE officers, ran away when federal officers deployed tear gas, then returned to do it again, Bailey said.

Oregon's lawyers argued that the protests did not impede immigration enforcement. Federal and local police had ample resources to contain the protests, making a military response unnecessary and illegal, according to the state.