'We deeply regret these errors': Trump DOJ admits it submitted false information to court
During a federal appeals court review of its earlier decision permitting President Donald Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted that it misrepresented key facts in its legal filings.
Earlier, the DOJ had told the court it was "undisputed that nearly a quarter" of Federal Protective Services (FPS) had to be diverted to Portland. Now, they say it was around 13.1 percent.
"Defendants’ declarations explain in detail why the surge of FPS personnel in response to violence and unrest is unsustainable. But defendants take with the utmost seriousness their obligation to provide the Court with accurate and up-to-date information, and we deeply regret these errors," the DOJ told the court, according to court documents released on Monday.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled in favor of the administration, allowing the federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect federal property in Portland.
The court's majority cited claims that nearly a quarter of the FPS officers had been redeployed to Portland, suggesting a significant strain on federal resources.
However, upon further investigation when the court paused the deployment, the DOJ acknowledged that only 20 to 31 FPS officers were ever deployed to Portland at any given time, far fewer than the 115 initially claimed. The department expressed "deep regret" over the misrepresentation, labeling it a "material factual error"
This admission prompted the full Ninth Circuit to pause its earlier ruling, reinstating a lower court's temporary restraining order that blocks the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland.
The reversal has significant implications for the Trump administration's authority to deploy federal troops in Portland.
While the administration contends that the deployment is necessary to protect federal assets and personnel, critics argue that the misrepresentation undermines the legal basis for such actions. The development comes amid tensions between federal and state authorities over the use of military force in civilian settings.
