By TROY BRYNELSON and CONRAD WILSON/Oregon Public Broadcasting
Attorneys returned to court Thursday in Portland as U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut hears further arguments over the legality of domestic military deployment to Portland.
On Thursday, lawyers for the city of Portland and the states of Oregon and California pressed their case in federal court against a National Guard deployment that none say they want or believe is legal.
Their attorneys spent the morning taking aim at federal law enforcement’s use of force at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building at Portland’s south waterfront, where persistent protests since June have become the epicenter of the troop deployment debate.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, struck a defensive posture. They made a case that federal law enforcement at the building has been outnumbered and largely abandoned by local police.
While the first day of trial saw local police testify about their own tactics, Portland police spent Thursday morning juxtaposing those tactics against the actions of federal law enforcement.
Portland police have opted for white-shirted “dialogue officers,” embedded plainclothes cops and bicycle police to make targeted arrests. They have arrested 60 people since the protests began, yet rarely declared riots and have avoided using chemical munitions.
Meanwhile, as OPB has reported, federal law enforcement has on multiple occasions launched tear gas and pepper balls, among other things, at protesters without clear signs of provocation.
City attorney Caroline Turco questioned Portland police Assistant Chief Craig Dobson about the bureau’s crowd control policies broadly, and asked him to dissect video footage of federal officers firing chemical munitions into the crowds.
One video showed Portland police’s own bicycle police reeling from clouds of tear gas near the building. Dobson, who was among those gassed the Oct. 18 night of the footage, testified that he wouldn’t have trained Portland police to fire the way federal law enforcement did.
“Does the behavior of the crowd as seen in this video justify the deployment of force?” Turco asked.
“In my training experience — from what I saw — I did not see indicators that would indicate that we as PPB would be able to deploy those munitions into the crowd,” Dobson responded.
Later in the day, an official with the Federal Protective Service disclosed that federal law enforcement’s tactics have led to three internal investigations for improper use of force.
Representatives for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to questions from OPB about the nature of the incidents and the status of the officers involved.
Prior to the first testimonies Thursday, Justice Department attorneys revisited Wednesday’s revelation that the federal government may have flouted Immergut’s order.
That information came after a series of emails entered the court record, as well as statements made to Immergut by an attorney for the Justice Department. The emails suggested “a force of nine” troops had arrived at the ICE building on the morning of Oct. 4 — the same day Immergut issued a temporary restraining order against deploying troops.
While the federal government did acknowledge deploying the troops, Justice Department attorneys say the troop deployment occurred prior to her ruling.
Justice Department attorneys couldn’t answer Immergut’s questions about who ordered the deployment and how long they were stationed at the building. The emails did not make those details clear either.
Immergut wondered aloud whether the government, by deploying the troops while she was actively deliberating the case, acted in “bad faith” but didn’t dwell on the topic very long in favor of getting the Thursday proceedings underway.
Administration’s first witnesses
In the late morning, attorneys with the Justice Department questioned a supervisor of the federal forces at the ICE building about what they’ve seen on the ground. He contended that they are besieged by “agitators” who demonstrate outside.
A deputy regional director with the Federal Protective Service, an agency tasked with leading security of federal government property, argued he and his officers are spread thin and cannot rely on local police for help.
The deputy regional director was permitted to testify anonymously and was identified on the stand by his initials, R.C..
On the stand, R.C. said neither he nor his direct supervisor — both of whom he confirmed are the two most knowledgeable people within DHS about the safety of the ICE building in Portland — were consulted before Trump federalized the national guard.
“I was surprised,” R.C. said during cross-examination. When asked if he agreed with Trump’s statements that Portland was “on fire,” R.C. said no.
R.C.’s testimony plucked at a common thread across testimonies: Oregon’s laws. The state’s sanctuary law prohibits police from helping federal law enforcement with any actions related to immigration. Oregon lawmakers also recently narrowed the circumstances in which local police can declare riots and use crowd control munitions.
“When PPB is allowed to do their job, do you think that they do good policing?” Justice Department attorney John Bailey asked.
“Absolutely,” R.C. replied.
The testimony largely centered on protests in June, when demonstrators first began to gather outside the facility — months before the city drew Trump’s attention.
R.C. testified that the facility endured extensive damage during the first “No Kings” protest on June 14. He said the building was “under siege,” according to reports filed by federal officers on the ground. R.C. testified that officers that day prepared to use lethal force – though they never did.
By the time Portland police responded and began to arrest some of the protesters “there was a lot of damage and uncertainty whether we were going to receive that support from the Portland Police Bureau,” he said.
According to R.C., federal law enforcement have made an estimated 40 requests to Portland police that went unanswered. He described the relationship as strained.
“When the Portland Police Bureau shows up at the ICE facility, do you expect them to help?” Bailey asked.
“No, not generally,” R.C. said.
When questioned by Portland’s attorney Turco, R.C. acknowledged that his experiences working with Portland police have been “nothing but positive.”
At one point, Turco asked R.C. about federal law enforcement’s use of tear gas. The official said they use tear gas to break up crowds. The decision to use it is “based on the size of the crowd, number of officers, disposition of the crowd, and threats from the crowd,” he said.
R.C. said he believes the protests are a coordinated effort. Trump officials, and the president himself, have labeled “antifa” as an organized cell of domestic terrorists. Portland police previously testified that the demonstrations do not typically have leaders and are not coordinated. The “antifa” movement is largely viewed as decentralized as a tenet of opposing perceived fascist policies.
R.C. described protesters following federal law enforcement officers out of the building and capturing their license plates. Federal law enforcement officers have also tried to intercept protesters’ “cross talk” on walkie talkies, he said, but didn’t provide details.
The third and final scheduled day of trial is set for Friday.
- This story originally appeared Oct. 30, 2025 on Oregon Public Broadcasting.
