Trump authorises 'full force' as Portland becomes latest city to see troops deployed

President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of U.S. troops to Portland, Oregon, authorising use of "full force" if necessary.

In a Saturday morning post on Truth Social, Trump said he was directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. "I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary." The post does not specify whether he intends to activate the national guard or regular U.S. military.

Portland would be the fourth city where the president has deployed troops on U.S. soil, following deployments in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Memphis. The decision marks another high-profile use of federal force in urban centers that has drawn criticism from local officials and civil liberties advocates, even as the president has framed the moves as necessary to restore order and protect federal facilities.

Portland's mayor, Keith Wilson, a Democrat, had previously pushed back on Trump's plans to deploy troops. "I have not asked for - and do not need - federal intervention," Wilson said earlier this month, underscoring the tension between the city government and federal authorities over how to respond to protests and unrest that have roiled the city in recent weeks. The use of federal personnel has intensified questions about jurisdiction, oversight, and the role of federal power in domestic matters.

The Saturday announcement comes amid ongoing demonstrations in Portland and other cities, often centered around accusations of excessive force, civil rights concerns, and the appropriate response to protests that at times have turned violent. Supporters of federal action argue that rapid deployment is needed to safeguard facilities and protect public safety; opponents caution against militarized approaches that could escalate tensions and infringe on local governance.

As details remained scarce, questions about the scope, duration, and rules of engagement lingered. Officials in Portland and at the federal level have offered limited public comment, leaving residents and observers to interpret the implications for daily life, policing, and civil liberties in the days ahead. The administration has signaled a willingness to expand federal presence when it deems threats to federal property or personnel to be significant, but it has not provided a clear timetable for withdrawals or the involvement of non-federal agencies.

Observers noted that the deployment underscores a broader pattern of federal involvement in urban disturbances, reflecting continuing debates over the balance between national security interests and local autonomy. Critics argue that invoking a full-force response risks normalizing a path toward greater militarization of domestic security operations, while supporters contend that clear, decisive action is necessary to deter violence and protect sensitive sites.

The situation in Portland, as with other cities that have seen federal deployments, remains fluid. Officials emphasized the importance of de-escalation, lawful authority, and transparency in how security measures are implemented. The latest move adds to a rapidly evolving dynamic in which federal and local authorities vie to define the appropriate level of intervention during protests and civil unrest, a topic that is certain to be revisited in the weeks ahead as policymakers, residents, and lawmakers seek clarity on legal authorities, oversight, and the impact on civil rights.