1 like 0 dislike
in General Factchecking by (130 points)
recategorized by
When President Donald Trump announced he was sending troops to “protect war-ravaged” Portland, his administration cited the need to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities from persistent demonstrations.

But behind the scenes, White House officials say, Trump also had another goal in mind: he wanted to use the military to advance his federal crime crackdown, and he saw protecting ICE facilities as a good pretext.

3 Answers

1 like 0 dislike
ago by Newbie (200 points)

This claim is true (mostly). While I couldn't find any evidence that any White House officials said this, this article from npr states that Trump's administration is pushing deployment of the national guard in several cities with primarly democratic voters under the pretext of 'violent protests'. 

According to this law, the President is only able to deploy the national guard if "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States". In federal court, the Trump administration claims that they are unable to execute the law as it relates to immigration enforcement due to the protests in the area. This article from opb says that attorneys representing the Trump administration claim that protesters "assulted federal officers" and "damaged federal property," while the attorneys for Oregon and Portland provided evidence showing that the protests leading up to the point where Trump sent in the national guard were just anywhere from "8-15 people at any given time 'mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around'". While both sources lean slightly left on Ad Fontes Media, a media bias chart, they are also both some of the highest rated on reliability. 

This article from CNN says that he's floating invoking the Insurrection act, despite the lack of evidence of an actual insurrection, or "really even extraordinary levels of crime," which is supported by this graph showing that crime has been at its lowest since 2020, posted by the Portland Police Bureau. When reaching out to the Trump administration, I recived no response.

True
ago by Newbie (470 points)
0 0
I agree with this response, it shows the legal framework in which the President has to operate around in order to send troops to Portland, while explaining that his intent may not be to protect from protesters as Portland crime has been down and not at rates that require federal troops.
0 like 1 dislike
ago by Newbie (270 points)
The government framed the protests as a danger. Still, reports from the ground suggest that things were relatively peaceful, especially before federal troops were deployed. It's also fascinating to note that the political showmanship appeared to be equally vital, rather than actual fears about public safety. Targeting Portland helped the Trump do a "law and order" agenda, aimed explicitly at Democratic-led cities. The timing and language suggest it was more political than policy.
True
ago by Innovator (64.1k points)
0 0
You mention "reports" but don't provide any sources. Always include source links. Thanks!
ago by (180 points)
0 0
The additional context surrounding whether the deployment of the National Guard was more for policy or politics is a helpful debate to consider if the White House views it as "Trump's crime crackdown" as stated in the original claim. I think your information could be stronger if you cited the source of "reports from the ground suggest that things were relatively peaceful."
0 like 0 dislike
ago by (140 points)

I found this claim to be true. In an article produced by news outlet Political, it is stated that Trump is threatening the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act in order to help advance his agenda of federal criminal crackdown specifically in Portland. 

In a video published by the Wall Street Journal, Trump himself says while in the Oval Office that he would invoke the Insurrection Act, "if it was necessary." The Insurrection Act, an act in which gives the president the power to deploy military for domestic law enforcement, hasn't been put into order since the LA riots of 1992. Additionally, from this article from BCC it is clear that threatening the use of the Insurrection Act was a part of Trump's agenda from his campaign, cracking down on illegal immigration and crime in bigger, mostly democratic cities in the US. On Trump's first day of office in January of 2025, he even asked for "recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807." Both BCC and Wall Street Journal place in middle or balanced bias on the Ad Forbes Media chart.

This article from Oregon Public Broadcast supports the fact that Trump is trying to use the Insurrection Act, despite it being unwarranted from the Governor of Oregon, Tina Kotek. Even officials who Trump appointed, are viewing this as unlawful, "Over the weekend, Karin Immergut, a federal judge who was appointed by Trump, prevented the president from deploying members of the Oregon National Guard to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in South Portland." I tried reaching out to the Trump Administration to receive a comment, but got no response back. 

True

Community Rules


• Be respectful
• Always list your sources and include links so readers can check them for themselves.
• Use primary sources when you can, and only go to credible secondary sources if necessary.
• Try to rely on more than one source, especially for big claims.
• Point out if sources you quote have interests that could affect how accurate their evidence is.
• Watch for bias in sources and let readers know if you find anything that might influence their perspective.
• Show all the important evidence, whether it supports or goes against the claim.
...