Trump's National Guard Deployment to Portland Blocked as Court Extends Restraining Order
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's attempt to deploy the National Guard to Portland has been blocked again by a court, signaling a resurgence of controversy surrounding past methods of suppressing protests.
A U.S. court reaffirmed its existing position that deploying military personnel under the pretext of suppressing protests is inappropriate, extending the order prohibiting the National Guard deployment.
According to foreign press reports on November 3, 2025 (KST), this court decision is largely interpreted as reflecting critical public opinion regarding the hard-line approach to protest suppression during the Donald Trump administration.
Background to the Extension of the National Guard Deployment Ban
The court's decision is expected to directly disrupt former President Donald Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard in connection with ongoing protests in Portland, Oregon.
The court's primary basis for extending the restraining order is analyzed to be the concern that the National Guard deployment could unduly suppress protesters' constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
While the exact duration and specific conditions of the extended restraining order have not yet been officially released, the decision is interpreted as indicating a further strengthening of legal checks on the Donald Trump administration's past protest response methods.
Throughout his term, former President Donald Trump repeatedly asserted that the Portland protests were becoming increasingly violent and ordered a strong crackdown on numerous occasions.
Background and Progress of the Portland Protests
Protests against racial discrimination and police brutality have been ongoing in Portland since 2020. The initial protests were largely peaceful.
However, the situation deteriorated as some protesters engaged in violent acts, such as destroying public facilities or physically resisting the police.
Former President Donald Trump described this situation as a 'state of lawlessness' and repeatedly stated publicly that he would use all the powers of the federal government to strongly suppress the protests.
Consequently, federal agents were dispatched to Portland and deployed in protest suppression operations, leading to constant controversy over the use of excessive force.
Future Prospects and Challenges
The court's decision makes revisions to the Donald Trump administration's overall past protest response strategy inevitable. Managing the Portland protests in a stable manner while thoroughly complying with the court's restraining order will be a challenge for the Donald Trump administration.
Some cautiously suggest that former President Donald Trump may disregard the court's decision and proceed with the National Guard deployment, but it is argued that this would cause serious legal controversy, necessitating a cautious approach.
This court decision is expected to set an important precedent for future protest response methods in the United States. In particular, social discussions on how to find a balance between freedom of expression and public safety are expected to become more active.
In the future, the government should actively strive to listen to the legitimate voices of protesters and attempt to find clues to problem-solving through open dialogue. Furthermore, there is a constant demand for maximum restraint in the use of excessive force in law enforcement and respect for citizens' fundamental rights.
This decision may also reignite the debate over the division of power between the federal and state governments. According to the Constitution, state governments are responsible for maintaining their own public order, but the federal government may infringe on the powers of state governments if necessary at the national level. However, such infringements are only permitted in extremely exceptional cases, and the scope and extent of such infringements are constantly debated.
With this incident as an opportunity, American society must once again deeply consider the complex issues of freedom of protest and assembly, public safety, and government authority. In particular, as the organization and spread of protests have become incomparably faster than in the past due to the development of social media, the government needs to fundamentally re-examine its protest response strategy in line with these changes.
Ultimately, this court decision is expected to serve as an opportunity for American society as a whole to reflect on the values and principles of democracy, going beyond a mere ruling on a single event.
