Small, mostly peaceful protests outside ICE facilities--not "war ravaged" as Trump stated.

Trump orders U.S. military to protect Portland from Antifa and other "domestic terrorists."



@grok, how many protestors actually identifying as 'antifa' are these troops facing down in Portland?

This isn't a case where Trump is just claiming an 'antifa' threat where there really isn't one, is it?

Recent reports indicate ongoing protests at Portland's ICE facility involving Antifa-affiliated individuals, with activities like sieges, doxing, and threats reported over weeks. Exact numbers of self-identified Antifa protesters aren't specified in sources—some describe crowds as small. Troops were announced today, so no direct confrontations yet. Diverse outlets confirm protests but debate the threat's scale.

How many troops versus protestors?

Exact troop numbers aren't specified in announcements or reports from sources like NYT, NPR, and Guardian—described as "all necessary" without details. Protester counts at Portland's ICE facility vary, with accounts noting small groups of dozens or a handful, sometimes none present. Deployment was just announced, so updates may follow.

is Portland 'war ravaged as Trump claims here?

What is the actual nature of the 'siege' Trump claims at ICE facilities, and are they really so consequential or debilitating to ICE to require military troops?

These are unarmed protestors there, right?

Recent reports from sources like NYT, Guardian, and BBC describe Portland as having returned to normal after past unrest, with small, mostly peaceful protests outside ICE facilities—not "war ravaged" as Trump stated.

The "siege" refers to ongoing demonstrations (dozens of protesters) involving chants, doxing of officers, and threats per DHS, but locals and media call them non-debilitating, with no major operational halts reported.

Protesters are generally described as unarmed in available accounts.

who will these military troops be exercising 'full force' against if the protests are peaceful as described?

Is he authorizing 'force' in this post against peaceful protestors?

Are all of the protestors, or any of them, 'doxing officers' at these demonstrations?

Trump's statement authorizes "full force if necessary" to protect ICE facilities from what he calls Antifa sieges and threats, per reports from NYT, Reuters, and DHS. Sources like Guardian and OPB describe current protests as small and mostly peaceful, so force would target any escalations, not peaceful activity.

It conditions force on necessity, not explicitly against peaceful protesters.

DHS reports some Antifa-linked protesters have doxed officers in past incidents; not all, and recent details vary.

how would doxing occur in these protests against officers?

Aren't reports saying these ICE agents are mostly masked and do not have any personally identifying markers on them, much less any indication what branch of law enforcement they represent?

Reports from DHS, NYT, and Guardian indicate doxing of ICE officers in Portland protests often involves protesters following agents home (e.g., recent indictments for livestreaming chases and posting addresses), accessing public records, or sharing leaked info online. While some officers are masked and in unmarked vehicles per sources, these methods reveal identities indirectly, not relying on visible markers.

how many incidents of doxing ICE in this administration? How many perpetrators?

Reports from DHS (Jul 2025) mention doxing incidents against ICE officers in Portland protests, tied to a claimed 700% rise in assaults, but don't specify exact numbers. A congressional letter questions these claims without providing stats.

Justice Dept. charged 22 defendants for offenses at ICE facilities since Jun 2025, some involving threats; not all doxing-related per OPB and Guardian. Perpetrator counts aren't detailed beyond arrests (e.g., 20 in Portland per KPTV). Exact figures remain unclear across sources

.

@grok, can you outline the specific charges against the 22 defendants for offenses at ICE facilities since Jun 2025 and the end result of those?

Since June 13, 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office charged 22-23 defendants (per Justice Dept. and OPB reports) for ICE facility protests in Portland. Common charges: assault on federal officers (e.g., Riley Freeman: assault with deadly weapon, unregistered destructive device; Andrew Marcum: assault), depredation of government property (e.g., Jeremy Hummel: misdemeanor; Ian McCarthy: felony with assault), and others like trespassing or threats.

Outcomes as of Sep 2025: Cases mostly pending; initial appearances led to conditional releases. No convictions or dismissals detailed in sources like http://Justice.gov, Oregonlive, or Guardian; updates may emerge.

so, @grok, one charge was listed by the FBI as graffiti; another was claimed to have 'kicked an officer in the leg' while being pursued, causing him to trip.

What was the incendiary device Freeman was accused of throwing? And list of charges for the others mentioned in Portland?

Per Justice Dept. reports, Riley Freeman was accused of throwing an incendiary device (described as a destructive device that detonated near officers) on July 4, 2025, charged with assault with deadly weapon and unregistered destructive device.

Other Portland ICE protest charges since June (per DOJ, OPB):
- Andrew Marcum: Assault on federal officer.
- Jeremy Hummel: Misdemeanor depredation of govt property (e.g., graffiti-related).
- Ian McCarthy: Felony assault and depredation.
- Examples: One for "donkey-kicking" officer in shin; others for assault, failing to obey, creating hazard. Many pending.

Are any of these alleged crimes more than local or state police could handle? Has the governor or any police agency head in the state actually requested these military troops be sent in by the federal government to police these U.S. citizens?

Describe how unprecented this is.

Crimes like assault on federal officers and property damage at ICE facilities fall under federal jurisdiction, often beyond sole local handling per DOJ reports, though state police collaborate.

No requests from Oregon Gov. or local agencies; Trump ordered deployment at DHS Sec. Noem's request, per Reuters and Oregonlive.

Not fully unprecedented—precedents include Eisenhower's 1957 Little Rock troops for desegregation and Bush's 1992 LA riots deployment at gov. request—but rare without state consent, per Wikipedia.

so what actual property damage has occurred on federal facilities or against federal property?

Reports from DOJ, DHS, and OPB cite property damage at Portland ICE facilities in 2025, including:

- Battering ram (stop sign) damaging entry door (> $1,000, June 14; charged: Robert Hoopes).
- Attempts to damage equipment (June 29).
- Arson by at least 5 individuals.
- Graffiti and vandalism (e.g., June incidents).

Cases often pending.

@grok, is this an ongoing threat, did something occur in the immediate present to trigger this response?

Are federal facilities in Portland presently "under siege from attack by 'antifa' or "other domestic terrorists" as Trump claims in this declaration to deploy troops?

Per reports from Oregonlive and Reuters (Sep 27, 2025), protests at Portland ICE facilities are ongoing since June, with small groups (dozens) involved recently, some nonviolent but disruptive to neighbors.

No specific immediate event triggered Trump's deployment order today; it cites broader "anarchy."

Trump claims facilities are under siege by antifa/domestic terrorists; local officials (Gov. Kotek, Mayor Wilson, Sen. Wyden) deny any national security threat, calling the city safe and calm.

is there any evidence, outside of admin claims of a broader "anarchy" in Portland today that would necessitate deploying US troops into this US city?

Any record in US history of a president deploying US troops to prevent nonviolent protests said to be "disruptive to neighbors?"

Independent reports from OPB and Reuters indicate ongoing small protests at Portland ICE facilities as of Sep 27, 2025, with some past clashes (e.g., rocks, graffiti) but no confirmed widespread anarchy or siege. Local officials (Gov. Kotek, Mayor Wilson) state the city is calm, denying any national emergency.

No U.S. historical records exist of presidents deploying federal troops solely for nonviolent protests deemed disruptive to neighbors; deployments have been for violent unrest or court enforcement.

(always independently verify what you're told, by anyone, not just AI search bots)