admin
A pair of federal judges this month threw up roadblocks that hampered President Trump’s push to restore order and accountability — one stopping the federalization of National Guard troops bound for Portland, and another freezing a USDA policy that would have forced states to hand over detailed SNAP recipient records. The rulings are being hailed by activists and blue-state officials as wins for civil liberties, but conservatives should see them for what they are: judicial micromanagement that undermines the executive branch’s authority to protect federal property and to safeguard taxpayer-funded programs.
On October 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s plan to federalize about 200 Oregon National Guard troops and send them to Portland to protect an ICE facility and other federal assets. Immergut, a Trump appointee, concluded the administration had not met the legal standard showing that local authorities were unable to execute the laws, and she left the order in place at least through mid-October as the matter moved toward appeal.
This is not merely a “legal” spat; it’s a political choice dressed up as law. Mayor Keith Wilson, Gov. Tina Kotek and other local Democrats openly opposed federal help, and the judge effectively sided with their refusal to accept assistance, even as federal property and employees faced explicit threats. Conservatives who believe in law and order should be alarmed that a court can neutralize presidential direction meant to secure federal sites when local leaders refuse cooperation.
In a separate fight over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 15, 2025 granted a preliminary injunction against the USDA’s demand that states turn over SNAP applicant and recipient data — a demand the department said was aimed at rooting out fraud and improving oversight. The injunction blocks USDA from penalizing states that refuse to hand over sensitive information and pauses any threatened funding cuts while litigation continues.
Make no mistake: the USDA’s request grew out of an executive order aimed at eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs, and it sought data covering benefits paid since 2020. To conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility, forcing state cooperation is a reasonable step toward transparency; the court’s injunction substitutes judicial preference for an intergovernmental accountability mechanism that taxpayers desperately need. The judges’ posture here sends a chilling signal that any administrative effort to clean up programs can be derailed by litigation.
Taken together, these rulings reflect a pattern of courts stepping into raw political disputes and second-guessing the elected branches on matters of public safety and program integrity. The administration has appealed and should continue to press its legal arguments — while Congress, if it truly wants to reassert control, needs to clarify the law around federal/state responsibilities for National Guard deployment and the limits of data-sharing authority for federally funded programs. If conservatives cede these battlegrounds to activist judges and permissive local leaders, the result will be weakened federal governance and emboldened chaos.
Hardworking Americans deserve leaders who will defend federal authority when it’s used to protect life, property, and the public fisc. These court decisions are a call to action: demand clarity, demand accountability, and demand that the rule of law means something other than a courtroom veto of commonsense efforts to secure communities and eliminate fraud. The appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court will have the last word if common sense fails in the legislatures — and conservatives must be ready for that legal fight.
