Portland City Councilor Mitch Green, an Army veteran, has called on National Guard troops to question whether deployment orders to Portland are constitutional, arguing that their duty is to protect the Constitution rather than unquestioningly follow orders from the chain of command. This stands in direct contrast to Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, who has maintained that Guardsmen must obey deployment orders regardless of her personal concerns. Green’s comments follow a recent court decision that lifted one of two temporary restraining orders (TROs) against National Guard deployments to Portland, though the second order remains in place, leaving the legality of the situation in flux.
In an interview with CNN, Green emphasized that the military oath of service is not a pledge to follow orders blindly, but rather a commitment to protect and serve the Constitution. “Your duty is to the Constitution,” he stated, suggesting that soldiers must assess whether an order conflicts with constitutional principles before complying. While Green has never refused a deployment during his military service, he highlighted that he was never faced with an order he considered clearly illegal. He acknowledged that troops are now being asked to make difficult choices about their loyalty to the Constitution versus the military hierarchy.
The recent court ruling has raised questions about the validity of lawsuits challenging the use of National Guard units in Portland, with legal experts suggesting long-standing Supreme Court precedents could weaken the legal grounds for such claims. Green noted that many veterans with connections to active-duty troops have reported confusion among service members, who are now questioning whether their deployments align with their service commitments. He expressed confidence that those who choose to disobey orders will not face isolation, stating that organizations like the National Lawyers Guild are prepared to provide support and legal resources to those who take such a stand.
Green’s position has sparked a broader debate over the role of National Guard units in domestic law enforcement and the extent to which troops can resist orders they believe are unconstitutional. While some argue that military discipline requires unquestioning obedience, others, including Green, believe that the Constitution should take precedence in cases where legal boundaries are crossed. This tension is further complicated by ongoing legal battles over the legality of the National Guard’s presence in cities experiencing public disorder, with the outcome of these disputes continuing to shape the potential for future deployments.