Portland, Oregon – A senior Portland Police Bureau commander testified Wednesday in a federal bench trial that the deployment of federal forces during Portland’s protests against immigration policies escalated tensions rather than easing them. The case could have far-reaching implications for how power is divided between federal and local law enforcement in times of civil unrest.
Urgent Missing Person Alert: 17-Year-Old Wissam Nasser Missing Since October 27, 2025
What Happened: Federal Forces Accused of Escalating Tensions
Commander Franz Schoening, who oversaw local protest response operations, told the court that federal agents’ actions worsened confrontations outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. He testified that federal officers fired tear gas at mostly nonviolent demonstrators, describing their actions as “shocking.”
According to Schoening, the use of force by federal officers — including tear gas and crowd-control munitions — violated local and state restrictions. He added that some Portland police officers were accidentally struck by federal munitions during the clashes.
One of the most significant incidents, Schoening said, occurred during an October 18 protest when a federal agent allegedly fired a munition that ricocheted off the driveway and landed on the facility’s roof, prompting agents stationed there to fire additional rounds into the crowd.
“We did not see any violent conduct or behavior that required the use of force,” Schoening testified. “It appears to have been triggered by the deployment of that munition by a federal officer.”
Legal Context: Federal vs. Local Authority
The central issue in the case is whether President Donald Trump had a legal basis for deploying the National Guard and federal agents to Portland during the protests.
Attorney Caroline Turco, representing the City of Portland, argued that the protests were largely peaceful, and that the federal response was excessive and unconstitutional.
“This case is about whether we are a country of constitutional law or martial law,” Turco said in her opening statement.
In contrast, Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton defended the federal intervention, stating that federal officers and property had been targeted by violent agitators, justifying the deployment. He argued that the Insurrection Act and other federal statutes authorized the use of the National Guard to protect federal interests and restore order.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
The case has reignited national debate over federal authority in local policing and the balance between security and civil rights. Local leaders maintain that Portland police are capable of handling protests responsibly while protecting First Amendment rights.
The ongoing three-day, non-jury trial features testimony from both federal and local law enforcement officials. The verdict could set a legal precedent governing how federal agencies respond to local unrest and whether similar interventions could be justified in the future.
As the proceedings continue, both city officials and residents are watching closely, awaiting a decision that could redefine federal involvement in domestic protest management.
This story may be updated as more information becomes available.