Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Judges across the country — including several appointed by President Donald Trump himself — have repeatedly rejected his sweeping claims that the United States is in the grip of rebellion or foreign invasion, undercutting his efforts to justify extraordinary actions such as domestic troop deployments and emergency deportation powers.
The rulings mark a rare, bipartisan judicial rebuke of Trump’s long-running narrative of a nation in crisis — a central theme of his political brand since his 2016 campaign and 2017 inaugural address.
In two decisions last week, federal judges blocked Trump’s attempts to send National Guard troops to Chicago and Portland, Oregon, finding no evidence of the violent unrest he described.
Judges: Trump’s claims “untethered to the facts”
In Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry said there was “no rebellion or danger of one,” contradicting the administration’s assertion that protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility required military intervention. Perry, a Biden appointee, said the Department of Homeland Security’s account was “simply unreliable” and “lacked credibility.”
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — reached a similar conclusion, dismissing Trump’s claims that “war-ravaged Portland” was nearly in insurrection. Immergut said protests near a federal facility “typically involved twenty or fewer people” and were “such a minor issue that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland required more police resources.”
“The president’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote.
Court challenges to “invasion” narrative
Trump has also invoked claims of an “invasion” by Venezuelan-linked gangs to justify sweeping deportations under the Alien Enemies Act — an argument Republican-appointed judges have rejected.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force,” wrote U.S. appellate Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, in a recent opinion.
Another Trump appointee, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., similarly found in May that the administration’s evidence “does not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion.’”
Legal and political implications
Taken together, the rulings highlight a growing judicial consensus — across ideological lines — that Trump’s sweeping claims of national emergency are exaggerated or unsupported by fact.
While violent incidents have occurred — including assassination attempts on Trump and other political figures — the courts found no evidence of the nationwide rebellion or foreign invasion that Trump has used to justify emergency powers.
The decisions also underscore how Trump’s rhetoric, long dismissed by critics as political theater, is now being tested — and refuted — in court.
