President Donald Trump told U.S. service members in Japan that he is prepared to send “more than the National Guard” into American cities to enforce his law enforcement push on crime and immigration, according to reporting by The New York Times. Speaking aboard the USS George Washington at Yokosuka Naval Base on Tuesday, Trump said, “We’re sending in our National Guard, and if we need more than the National Guard, we’ll send more than the National Guard, because we’re going to have safe cities.”
The remarks come as legal disputes continue over what troops under federal control may do on domestic soil — disputes that, the Times noted, treat federalized National Guard and active-duty forces the same when it comes to law-enforcement roles.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
9th Circuit to rehear Oregon Guard case
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted an en banc rehearing in the case over President Trump’s authority to federalize the Oregon National Guard and deploy them to Portland. By doing so, it vacated last week’s 2–1 panel ruling that favored the administration and reinstated U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s temporary restraining order blocking the deployment while an 11-judge panel reconsiders the dispute.
Unbiased. Straight Facts.TM
“En banc” is a French phrase meaning “on the bench,” used in law when all of the judges in a particular court are called to review a complex or high-profile case.
“This ruling shows the truth matters and that the courts are working to hold this administration accountable,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield in a statement Tuesday. “The Constitution limits the president’s power, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority.”
The case examines presidential authority to federalize the Guard and potential violations of states’ rights, alongside First Amendment questions and federal arguments that safeguarding a Portland ICE facility justifies the deployment.
Hearing begins Wednesday
Judge Immergut, who earlier this month temporarily blocked any federal troop deployments to Oregon, will preside over a three-day trial beginning Wednesday on whether the Trump administration met the statutory and constitutional requirements for federalizing the Guard.
The administration argues that the president’s determination was justified by assaults on federal officers and damage at the ICE site, while Oregon and California say unlawful conduct during protests does not meet legal thresholds for military deployment, according to their filings.
The government later corrected a key factual claim it had used to justify bringing in reinforcements: Officials acknowledged fewer Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers were deployed than initially stated, undercutting the argument for an urgent need to add more troops, according to OPB. A supplemental declaration states that 86 Federal Protective Service officers — not 115 — rotated to Portland in monthlong “waves” of up to 30 at a time, with officials expressing regret for earlier errors, the filings show.
“The number of individual officers who deployed to Portland as of September 30, 2025, is approximately 86, not 115,” said Robert Cantu, a regional deputy director with the Federal Protective Service.
“FPS is unable to sustain having its officers deploy to Portland,” and that the agency “requires additional assistance,” Cantu said.
How the Guard is being used
According to The New York Times, President Trump has deployed or sought to deploy National Guard units to multiple cities under different legal authorities, which determine what troops can do on the ground.
Under Title 10, Guard members in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland have been largely confined to federal property because the Posse Comitatus Act typically bars federal troops from law enforcement duties.
Under Title 32 in Washington, D.C., and Memphis, troops have patrolled with local police but have avoided arrests. Legal scholars quoted by the Times say that case law on domestic military use is sparse and cross-state federalized deployments are unusually contentious.
