As one of America’s most respected trial lawyers, decorated Marine veteran John Keker is known for his fearless defense of justice and civic integrity as a lawyer at the downtown firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters.
This year, his firm gained national attention as one of the first in the country to criticize President Donald Trump’s presidential memos and executive orders targeting big law firms and attorneys for retribution. While nine firms agreed earlier this year to provide nearly $1 billion worth of free legal services to the administration in order to avoid litigation, Keker stood up to Trump and defended San Francisco’s values on a national stage.
In doing so, Keker embodied The City’s spirit: courageous, principled and unafraid to challenge power when the rule of law and decency are at stake. Before we began our interview, Keker pointed out a framed photograph hanging in his Jackson Square office of a young Nelson Mandela after being acquitted of treason in 1956 — a constant inspiration to keep fighting the good fight.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What does being named a San Franciscan of the Year mean to you? I was obviously picked on athletic ability, and I beat Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler, and Buster Posey.
Seriously, it’s a great honor. I moved to San Francisco with my family in 1971 determined to stay here. When we first moved here, I had a public-defender job with a public-defender salary, and I needed $500 to pay the mover. I went to the Bank of America at Fisherman’s Wharf to ask to borrow it, and the woman said, “You don’t meet our criteria.” And I started screaming and said, “I’m going to be somebody in this town someday, and I’m going to bring down the Bank of America!”
We do not have a functioning Congress in large measure because the Republican members are trying to protect “king” Trump from what the release of the complete Epstein files will reveal about him. That’s why Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz), has yet to be sworn into office. Over 800,000 citizens in Arizona, that’s about 10% of the entire population of the state, have no representative in the House, because the speaker, Mike Johnson, arguably the worst Speaker in two centuries, knows that when she is sworn in, her vote will compel the release of the Epstein files. Donald Trump has always been an entitled lecher. It was the main thing that stood out to me the one time that I met him. And I heard rumours in Moscow about his lechery in 1987, when he came to Russia to try to get permission to build hotels. More than two dozen women have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct or assault, including groping and unwanted kissing, in incidents spanning several decades and, of course, he was convicted of sexual molestation. So I have little doubt that the Epstein files will produce further documentation of his lusts and possible pedophilia. Meanwhile, America’s dysfunctional government is degrading the lives of tens of millions of Americans, including maybe yours.
Several House Republicans have reportedly heard from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the unreleased Jeffrey Epstein documents are especially compromising for President Donald Trump.
That’s according to reporting from former MSNBC, CNN and Fox News reporter David Shuster, who posted to his X account on Wednesday that there is “speculation/rumors sweeping through [the] GOP caucus” about the details of the Epstein files.
“A few GOP house members say they’ve heard from FBI/DOJ contacts that the Epstein files (with copies in different agencies) are worse than Michael Wolff’s description of Epstein photos showing Trump with half naked teenage girls,” Shuster wrote.
Shuster is likely referring to an October interview in which Trump biographer Michael Wolff told the Daily Beast that he had personally seen “about a dozen Polaroid snapshots” of Trump and Epstein, in which Trump was photographed with several topless young women on his lap. Wolff said Epstein pulled the photos out of a safe and spread them out “like a deck of cards” on his dining room table. The author told the Beast he saw the photos while visiting Epstein’s home at the convicted sex offender’s invitation, as Epstein wanted Wolff to write a book about him.
Fury on the progressive left and among lawmakers who opposed such “capitulation” to the Republican Party erupted overnight after a handful of Senate Democrats joined with their GOP counterparts in a procedural vote on Sunday night to end the government shutdown without gaining any meaningful concessions.
With the support of eight members of the Democratic caucus—Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire—Republicans in the upper chamber secured the necessary 60 votes needed to pass a cloture vote that paves the way for a deal critics warn does nothing to save Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed due to the GOP spending bill passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
“It is thoroughly disappointing that, while most Americans overwhelmingly oppose Republicans’ horrific budget, support the fight to curtail Trump’s authoritarianism, and want to protect healthcare, some Democrats failed to hold the line, and squandered an opportunity to score a popular and decisive win for the American people,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-director of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen.
The deal will combine three separate funding measures into a single stopgap bill that will reopen the government and keep it funded through the end of January of 2026, but contains no restoration of Medicaid funding, fails to curb Trump rescissions that have devastated government agencies and programs, and does nothing to address Affordable Care Act subsidies other than a “meaningless” promised vote to extend them within 40 days—a vote nearly sure to fail in the Senate and likely not even taken up in the US House, controlled by Republicans.
“What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism. That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened.” —Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
“How absolutely pathetic,” declared the Justice Democrats, an advocacy group that focuses on assisting progressive challengers willing to take on more establishment lawmakers in office. “Your voters expect you to hold the line for their basic healthcare and food benefits. This is just surrender. Every Senate Democrat that joined Republicans to pass this sold the American people out and we should make sure they have no future in public office.”
“Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation,” said Rep. Jonathan L. Jackson (D-Ill.). “Millions would lose their health coverage, and millions more would face skyrocketing premiums. The Senate should reject this misguided plan. In the House, my vote will be HELL NO.”
For Gilbert, the shutdown exhibited exactly “how far Republicans will go to demonstrate subservience to their authoritarian leader, even at the expense of the most basic needs of ordinary Americans. Republicans have destroyed affordable healthcare access for millions of Americans, and have allowed the President to weaponize hunger against millions more of our most vulnerable people, all so that they can bully through a budget that’s catapulting us towards a dystopian future of stark inequality.”
While the shutdown may come to an end this week, Gilbert said it remains imperative that “everyone who cares about the well-being of Americans to use all the leverage they have to push back on Trump’s authoritarianism and his cannibalizing of the basic needs of Americans for the benefit of his corporate donors and billionaire friends.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who, like Sen. King of Maine, caucuses with the Democrats, called it a “very bad night” as he condemned the eight members of the caucus for making a “very, very bad vote” at a time when the political winds and the moral argument were clearly on the side of holding the line.
“What it does, first of all,” said Sanders in a statement following the vote, “is it raises healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling. People can’t afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Number two, it paves the way for 15 million people to be thrown off of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” citing a statistic that indicates over 50,000 people “will die unnecessarily each year” due to lack of adequate healthcare coverage.
“All of that was done,” continued Sanders, “to give a $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%.” In a political context, Sanders noted that last week’s electoral wins in numerous races across the country showed that voters are in the mood to reward lawmakers who stand up to President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress, rather than give in to them.
“What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism,” he said. “That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened.”
Democrats in the House, who had backed their Democratic colleagues for holding the line over 40 days in the Senate, fumed over the failure to keep going.
“Americans have endured the pain of the longest government shutdown in history for a ‘deal’ that guarantees nothing on healthcare,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). “If Republicans wanted to vote to extend subsidies, they would’ve done it already. Capitulating is unacceptable.”
“What Senate Dems who voted for this horseshit deal did was fuck over all the hard work people put in to Tuesday’s elections.” —Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, voted “no” on the deal. Still, it’s widely understood he was the driving force behind putting the agreement together and privately supported the eight lawmakers—none of whom are facing reelection in 2026—to cross over.
“Schumer voting ‘no’ for a shutdown deal he facilitated every step of the way,” noted journalist Ken Klippenstein. “Just trying to keep his hands clean. Don’t fall for it.”
In the wake of the vote, others called for Schumer to resign or be primaried for capitulating to deliver practically nothing.
The surrender by Democrats in the Senate facilitated by Schumer, opined journalist Krystal Ball, “perfectly encapsulates why centrists are the problem for the party both substantively and electorally. After romping nationwide victories, the worst members of the Democratic caucus decided to abandon the healthcare fight, which hurts Americans and demobilizes their own base.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
By Warren Pederson,Staff WriterUpdated Nov 9, 2025 (SFChronicle.com)
Gift Article
A banner opposing immigration raids flew over Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Sunday before the San Francisco 49ers unsuccessfully took on the Los Angeles Rams.
The banner, commissioned by public policy advocacy group MoveOn Civic Action, read “moveon.org/superbowl,” the web address for a page declaring “NFL: No ICE at the 2026 Super Bowl!”
The statement against the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement comes amid tensions over the upcoming Super Bowl LX performance of rapper and singer Bad Bunny, who is a U.S. citizen as a native of Puerto Rico, an American territory.
The Grammy winner’s comments about skipping the U.S. during his latest tour out of deportation fears for his Latino fans prompted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to declare that ICE agents would be “all over the Super Bowl.”
Bad Bunny’s upcoming appearance has riled conservatives over his support for immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights and his opposition to the Trump administration. In his “Saturday Night Live” monologue last month, he encouraged Super Bowl fans to learn Spanish before the Feb. 8 game at Levi’s Stadium.
An online petition to replace Bad Bunny with “King of Country” George Strait, launched Oct. 1, had more than 110,000 signatures as of Monday.
“The Super Bowl halftime show should unite our country, honor American culture, and remain family-friendly, not be turned into a political stunt,” said Virginia resident Kar Shell, who started the Strait petition.
Meanwhile, MoveOn has launched its own petition opposing the possible presence of ICE officers at the big game. As of Monday, it had more than 83,000 signatures.
“This is completely unacceptable,” reads the petition, active since Oct. 7. “We cannot let ICE terrorize our communities and our families at the largest single sporting event in the U.S.”
As the Senate Democratic caucus met privately on Thursday to discuss the party’s approach to the ongoing government shutdown following key electoral victories earlier this week, progressives sent a message to any centrists thinking of breaking ranks: “You cave, you lose.”
Those were the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has vocally warned Democrats against abandoning their push for an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies as a necessary condition for any deal with the GOP to end the shutdown—now the longest in US history.
“Trump claims he is ‘a dealmaker.’ Well, Mr. President: Let’s make a deal today,” Sanders wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “Stop the doubling of healthcare premiums for 20 million Americans. Stop 15 million from losing their healthcare. Immediately reopen the government. What are you waiting for?”
Assuming a united Republican caucus, the GOP needs the support of at least seven Democratic senators to break the 60-vote filibuster in the upper chamber and pass government funding legislation.
Thus far, Republicans have refused to negotiate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies as long as the government is shut down, even as people across the country see eye-popping premium hikes. Rather than cutting a deal on the ACA tax credits, President Donald Trump has pushed Republicans to scrap the filibuster to end the shutdown without Democratic support.
The Hillreported that Thursday’s Senate Democratic caucus meeting was expected to include discussion of a potential deal that would entail a vote on the ACA subsidies “in some form” in exchange for a government funding agreement—though the details are nowhere near finalized.
“Voters have sent a resounding message: We want leaders who fight for us, and we want solutions that make life more affordable.”
Ahead of Democrats’ meeting, Republicans floated a new offer that would reportedly entail “rehiring federal workers who have been laid off during the shutdown as part of a deal to end it,” according to Politico.
That would meet a demand of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), one of the Senate Democrats seen as most likely to support a government funding package without an extension of the ACA subsidies. The others include Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
“Moderate Senate Democrats who are looking for an off-ramp right now are completely missing the moment,” Katie Bethell, political director of the progressive advocacy group MoveOn, told the Associated Press on Thursday, pointing to the results of this week’s elections.
“Voters have sent a resounding message: We want leaders who fight for us, and we want solutions that make life more affordable,” said Bethell.
Polling data released Thursday by Groundwork Action and Hart Research Associates shows that a strong plurality of US voters are “more favorable toward Democrats and the Democratic Party” over their decision to make soaring healthcare costs the “main focus” of their shutdown messaging and demands.
Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Action, said the new polling shows that “voters are fed up with President Trump’s economic policies and want candidates who will fight to lower costs and rein in healthcare prices.”
“With both the message and momentum on their side, now is not the time to back down,” Owens added. “Democrats must continue their fight to deliver for working families and reverse Trump’s healthcare price hikes.”
Boosting progressives’ case, some Senate Democrats have openly scoffed at the idea of agreeing to a deal to reopen the government in exchange for a mere commitment from the GOP to vote on the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year with potentially devastating consequences for millions of people across the country.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said the notion that Democrats “should have some level of trust that they’re going to deal with us and deal with the American people in an equitable way, I think, is just laughable.”
Gallego said he would not support legislation to end the shutdown “unless there’s somehow assurances that insurance rate premiums aren’t going to double for 24 million Americans.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt fields questions in the White House media briefing room in Washington DC on November 4, 2025.
(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Asked to provide evidence supporting her claim of voting fraud in California, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, “It’s just a fact.”
President Donald Trump is drafting an executive order aimed at rolling back voting rights, a measure that may include attacks on mailed ballots, a top administration official said Tuesday.
“The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our elections in this country and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we’ve seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
“Like any executive order, of course, any executive order the president signs is within his full executive authority and within the confines of the law,” she added.
Asked by a reporter what is her evidence of electoral fraud in California, Leavitt replied without evidence that “it’s just a fact.”
Leavitt’s remarks came hours after Trump baselessly attacked California’s vote-by-mail system in a post on his Truth Social network.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump alleged without evidence. “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!”
Trump has previously vowed to ban mail-in ballots, a move legal experts say would be unconstitutional.
The White House’s announcement also came as Americans voted in several high-stakes elections, including California’s Proposition 50 retaliatory redistricting proposal; the New York City mayoral race between progressive Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa; gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia; and a crowded contest for Minneapolis mayor highlighted by democratic socialist state Sen. Omar Fateh’s (D-62) bid to unseat third-term Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey.
The announcement also followed a federal judge’s permanent blocking of part of Trump’s executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms.
Democracy defenders have repudiated Trump’s attacks on mailed ballots and claims of voter fraud—a longtime right-wing bugaboo unsupported by facts on the ground.
“Voting by mail as permitted by the laws of your state is legal,” ACLU Voting Rights Project director Sophia Lin Lakin says in a statement on the group’s website about Trump’s order from March.
“In his sweeping executive order, Trump tried to bully states into not counting ballots properly received after Election Day under state law by threatening to withhold federal funding,” she continues. “A federal court has temporarily blocked this part of the executive order.”
“Trump’s effort to target mail-in voting is a blatant overreach, intruding on states’ constitutional authority to set the rules for elections,” Lin Lakin adds. “It threatens to disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible voters and would no doubt disproportionately impact historically excluded communities, including voters of color, naturalized citizens, people with disabilities, and the elderly, by pushing unnecessary barriers to the fundamental right to vote.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
By Zara Irshad,Staff Writer Nov 7, 2025 (SFChronicle.com)
Gift Article
Bad Bunny hasn’t even hit the Levi’s Stadium stage yet, but as debate over his upcoming Super Bowl LX performance continues, one organization plans to make a bold statement at the South Bay venue.
Public policy advocacy group MoveOn Civic Action has commissioned a banner that reads “No ICE at 2026 Super Bowl” to fly over the venue on Sunday, Nov. 9, before the San Francisco 49ers faceoff against the Los Angeles Rams. It’s scheduled to be in the air from 10:25 a.m. to 12:25 p.m. The Niners’ home game is scheduled to begin at 1:25 p.m.
The move comes amid heated discourse around Bad Bunny’s halftime show appearance, which some conservatives — including President Donald Trump — claim is unpatriotic. From the moment his selection was announced by the NFL in September, critics began disparaging the Grammy-winner’s Puerto Rican heritage (despite the island being a U.S. territory), his Spanish-language music and his political stances on topics such as LGBTQ+ rights, the Trump administration and immigration.
The artist’s past remarks about skipping the U.S. during his “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” tour out of fear for his Latino fans then resurfaced, prompting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to declare that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would be “all over the Super Bowl.”
In response, MoveOn launched a petition in an effort to prevent ICE officers from showing up for the big game.
“This is completely unacceptable,” the petition, launched on Oct. 7, reads. “We cannot let ICE terrorize our communities and our families at the largest single sporting event in the U.S.”
As of the evening of Friday, Nov. 7, it has earned more than 82,000 signatures.
MoveOn’s Sunday banner will also link to the petition.
Meanwhile, a petition to replace Bad Bunny with the “King of Country” George Strait, launched Oct. 1, continues to gain momentum As of Friday night, it has earned more than 109,000 signatures.
Virginia resident Kar Shell, who launched the effort, justified his argument by asserting that “The Super Bowl halftime show should unite our country, honor American culture, and remain family-friendly, not be turned into a political stunt.”
Nonetheless, the NFL and Jay-Z, who selected Bad Bunny along with Roc Nation and the city of Santa Clara, have doubled down on their support.
Additionally, Santa Clara Mayor Lisa Gillmor told the Chronicle last month that “we want to make sure that we protect everybody that comes to Santa Clara,” emphasizing that “this is an inclusive event.”
Zara Irshad is the Chronicle’s Arts & Entertainment Engagement Reporter. She joined the Chronicle as a summer 2023 intern for the Datebook team. She is a recent graduate of UC San Diego, where she studied communications. She previously interned for the San Diego Union-Tribune and wrote for her campus newspaper, the Guardian, where she served as editor-in-chief. Irshad was part of the honors program for her major and double-minored in world literature and film studies.
In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut found President Trump “did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.”
President Donald Trump was permanently blocked from sending the National Guard to Portland by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, who delivered her final order in the case Friday.
The case has centered around whether ongoing protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city warrant a National Guard deployment. In her ruling, she acknowledged “violent protests did occur,” but law enforcement was able to address them.
“Since that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland ICE facility have been predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence, largely between protesters and counter-protesters,” the judge wrote in her 106-page order, “this Court concludes that even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.”
The permanent injunction went into effect immediately.
The decision is a setback in the Trump administration’s effort to send National Guard members to the city, and marks the fourth time the judge has blocked the deployment.
The city of Portland and the states of Oregon and California sued in late September after President Trump announced on social media he would “provide all necessary Troops” to protect the city he described as “War ravaged” and “under siege.”
Federal law allows the president to federalize the National Guard under certain situations, such as a rebellion or threat of one, or an inability to execute laws.
Camp Withycombe on Sunday, Oct. 5, 2025. The camp serves as headquarters for several Oregon Army National Guard military units.Saskia Hatvany / OPB
After temporarily blocking the president from deploying guard troops twice, Immergut held a trial on the underlying lawsuit last week. Over the course of three days, the city and states argued the executive branch exceeded its constitutional authority and violated state sovereignty. They’ve also said the conditions on the ground in Portland do not warrant the deployment and can be handled by local law enforcement.
Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice disagreed, pointing to the arrest of several protesters throughout the summer and disruptions to federal immigration operations. They’ve maintained the president has sweeping authority to deploy the National Guard to protect federal functions.
“President Trump’s federalization decision is consistent with law,” Eric Hamilton, with the Justice Department, argued during the trial. “The president’s judgment is not subject to judicial review.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson repeated a previous statement in response to Friday’s ruling, saying “President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets” and they “expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
A previous lawsuit in California, after guard members and U.S. Marines were sent there in June, primarily challenged the activities the guard members were performing, such as police work. Oregon’s case is the first since Trump took office to go to trial over the lawfulness of federalizing the National Guard in the first place.
“To be clear, today this Court does not rule that the President can never deploy the National Guard to Oregon, or to any other location, if conditions on the ground justify the Guard’s intervention,” Immergut noted in her ruling Friday.
Jeff Feldman, a law professor at the University of Washington, said Immergut’s decision will likely be appealed and will go to a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“She gets credit for putting it on a fast track and getting on this very quickly,” Feldman said of Immergut’s trial.
Democratic political leaders involved in the case said the ruling marked an important moment as President Trump has pushed National Guard deployments in other places, such as Los Angeles and Chicago.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the permanent injunction a check on presidential power.
“No president is above the law, all of us, in every city across this country, must follow the law,” he said in a video message Friday night. “There’s a reason we have laws in place. And there’s a reason we don’t normalize the use of the military in our cities.”
Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said the city would continue its fight in court.
“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero, and today’s court ruling vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community,” the mayor said in a statement.
Like Wilson, California Attorney General Rob Bonta indicated he, too, was preparing for an appeal and said the legal fight was not over.
“Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s militarized vision for America’s future,” Bonta said in a statement Friday. “We must not become desensitized to the unprecedented and blatantly illegal nature of the President’s actions.”
In the six weeks since the lawsuit was filed, Oregonians have been subject to a ping-pong of court decisions and revelations. The most notable: National Guard troops were briefly deployed to the Portland ICE building in early October.
On Oct. 3, for the first time, Immergut heard arguments for and against a temporary restraining order to block the president from federalizing 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.
The following morning, a small group of Oregon National Guard members was ordered to the ICE building, according to emails submitted as part of the trial.
A federal agent and protesters stand in front of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, Ore., on Saturday, Oct. 25, 2025. A crowd of about 100 gathered in front of the building to protest that afternoon.Saskia Hatvany / OPB
While troops were still at the facility, Immergut issued a 31-page decision blocking the Trump administration from federalizing the state’s guard in the first place. The nine troops remained at the building until their shift concluded at midnight.
During trial, attorneys for the Trump administration twice told Immergut various explanations, including that it took time to communicate the message to people on the ground that her temporary restraining order had gone into effect.
In her Friday ruling, the judge questioned that explanation, stating she was “deeply troubled” the Trump administration kept members of the Oregon National Guard at the Portland ICE facility “in violation” of the first temporary restraining order.
Immergut noted the Trump administration responded to her initial order by quickly sending 200 California National Guard members, who were already under the president’s authority, to Oregon. After that, they called up hundreds of Texas National Guard troops.
“In other words, Defendants had time to order and coordinate the transport of federalized California National Guardsmen from Los Angeles to Portland, but needed more time to communicate with the Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility,” she wrote Friday.
On the evening of Oct. 5, Immergut held an emergency hearing and issued a second temporary restraining order. That one was broader and temporarily blocked any federalized members from any national guard from deploying to Oregon.
Rachel VanLandingham, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a retired lieutenant colonel who spent 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, called the Oct. 4 deployment alarming.
“It looks really bad,” VanLandingham said. “If it was a screw up, it shows a concerning lack of command and control, which is scary when you’re talking about military forces.”
If it was intentional, she explained, that would demonstrate “extreme disdain for our federal courts and for the role of a third co-equal branch of our government.”
There wasn’t an emergency on Oct. 4, she said, to justify deploying a small group of soldiers.
“There is zero factual basis for refusing to wait for the judge to rule,” VanLandingham said.
Correcting the record
As the case wound its way to trial, the Trump administration also found it had to correct the record, walking back a core assertion they used to justify the need to bring National Guard troops to Portland.
Initially, Department of Homeland Security officials told the courts the agency sent 115 officers from the Federal Protective Service (FPS), an agency responsible for securing federal property, to the city.
Attorneys for the Trump administration initially claimed “nearly a quarter of the agency’s entire FPS capacity had to be redirected over a relatively short period to a single location in one medium-sized American city due to the unrest there.”
That turned out to be wrong, according to court documents filed on the eve of trial.
“The number of individual officers who deployed to Portland as of September 30, 2025, is approximately 86, not 115,” Robert Cantu, a regional deputy director with the Federal Protective Service, stated in a corrected declaration with the court.
Protests at the U.S. Immigrations and Customs building in Portland, Ore., Oct. 18, 2025, where federal troops deployed tear gas, fired pepper balls and rubber bullets, along with flash-bangs.Conrad Wilson / OPB
The city and states argued in their own court filings that the FPS “moved only a small fraction” of the agency’s more than 1,300 employees, “to Portland to supplement the four officers assigned to the Portland ICE facility, and never more than 31 at a time.”
Law enforcement officers from ICE and Customs and Border Protection were also sent to Portland to assist at the immigration facility.
“In sum, the trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote in her Friday ruling.
“The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”
The exit of a political legend has opened the door for a new political discourse — or a free-for-all fracas — in San Francisco for the first time in nearly 40 years.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s decision not to run for reelection, announced Thursday, will allow San Francisco to openly debate how its representative — and the Democratic Party — should approach this unprecedented moment in American politics and democracy in the 2026 election.
Since Pelosi was first elected to Congress in a special election in 1987, tech bubbles have ballooned and burst, the Embarcadero Freeway was torn down and whole new neighborhoods have sprouted up. The City is different, and so is the country — and in many ways, both are internally divided.
Two prominent candidates have already lined up to fill Pelosi’s seat, and more are likely to join, each offering a different path forward.
Saikat Chakrabarti — seen at his campaign headquarters on Irving Street in August — is also running for the congressional seat that represents most of The City.Craig Lee/The Examiner
Saikat Chakrabarti is a millionaire thanks to his participation in San Francisco’s last big tech wave, during the quaint days before artificial intelligence was the investment de rigueur. His wealth comes from tech, but has hitched his political wagon to stars such as U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, both of whom he helped campaign.
In 2026, Chakrabarti will test whether voters trust a millionaire to stick it to the billionaires — if such a message even resonates here — and solve an affordability crisis while possibly stretching the definition of a “grassroots” campaign.
State Sen. Scott Wiener has made a name for himself in San Francisco by being an capital-A “Abundance”-style Democrat who champions housing development. But on the national stage, he has earned recognition and a fair share of Fox News hate for being a fiercely proud gay man and an online opponent of the MAGA crowd. Can Wiener be both versions of himself in a successful congressional run?
District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan speaks at a press conference in support of San Francisco as a sanctuary city, on the steps of City Hall on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2025. Craig Lee/The Examiner
Speculation also has run rampant that San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan could enter the mix. Chan, who represents a district that includes the Richmond neighborhood, has positioned herself as an adult-in-the-room presence on the Board of Supervisors as chair its Budget Committee amid particularly calamitous budget cycles.
Politically, Chan has proven capable of marshaling the power of organized labor to help her win reelection. Though commonly labeled as a progressive, she’s worked closely with moderate Mayor Daniel Lurie.
No matter who’s running, San Francisco voters will have to ask themselves what’s most important to them in a congressional representative. Inherently local issues — such as the increasingly hellish process of finding a livable apartment — are likely to be top of mind for many.
But on the national level, democratic norms are being upended left and right under President Donald Trump, and the stakes couldn’t possibly be higher. Democrats — and Pelosi in particular — have faced criticism for failing to have a clear counterstrategy in place when Trump and the Republican Party surged back to power in 2024.
The race could shape up to be a referendum on Pelosi’s leadership, particularly under Trump’s two terms and amid increasing pressure within the Democratic Party to shift politically leftward.
For what it’s worth, Trump reacted to the news of her retirement by saying “it is a great thing for America” and calling her a “highly overrated politician.”
Candidates will have to weigh how much they want to pitch themselves as a continuation of a representative who was undeniably popular in San Francisco — she never faced a serious challenge over 20 terms in office — but immensely polarizing on the national stage.
Democrats, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular, have faced criticism for failing to have a clear counterstrategy in place when Trump and Republicans surged back to power in 2024.Andrew Harnik/Associated Press
Chakrabarti, who has never run for office himself before, was particularly critical of Pelosi, calling on her to make way for a new generation of leadership and calling for a leftward shift by the Democratic Party. Wiener had long praised Pelosi and pledged to wait until she retired to seek the position — only to announce his candidacy before she officially bowed out.
The difference between the two candidates was evident in videos they posted to social media after Pelosi’s announcement. Chakrabarti effectively thanked Pelosi for getting out of the way and quickly offered himself as a leader who “won’t just manage a broken system” but rebuild it. Wiener, on the other hand, rattled off an array of Pelosi’s accomplishments, including the fight she pledged to wage against AIDS immediately upon taking the seat in 1987.
“She was sticking up for people like me, for kids like me, for gay men like me, and I and so many others will be eternally grateful for her fight and for her leadership,” Wiener said.
Particularly since giving up Democratic leadership in the House in 2022, Pelosi preferred a diminished public role, while still orchestrating behind the scenes. In 2024, she reportedly played a key role in urging President Joe Biden to step aside in the contest against Trump. And in the recent campaign for Proposition 50, Pelosi was reportedly pivotal from the jump in fundraising, but left it to party leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom to give the stump speeches and appear in advertisements.
Such tact was emblematic of Pelosi’s commitment to the party.
But what will Pelosi do now that she’s not — or at least not directly — serving the party and San Francisco? There’s ample speculation that should Chan run, Pelosi could throw her still-ample political muscle behind the Richmond-district supervisor.
Obviously, whoever fills Pelosi’s shoes — or heels, to put it more accurately, even at her 80-plus years of age — will wield less influence than the woman who literally wrote the book on “The Art of Power.” Taking for near-certainty that a Democrat will win the race for Pelosi’s seat in 2026, San Francisco voters will have to decide what they want the Democratic Party to be and what role they want their representative to play in it.
And that’s a decision San Franciscans haven’t really been confronted with in decades.
Help Outreach Working Group lift the fog of corporate media. Donate to help us maintain this website and distribute literature on the street.
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
Meeting Agenda April 22, 2026 The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 6:30 pm at Milton Marks Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102. A security screening will be required to enter the building. Members of the public can live... Continue reading →
SF Green Party Showing events after 3/27. Look for earlier events Wednesday, April 20 7:30pm SF Green Party Council Meeting WhenWed, April 20, 7:30pm – 9:00pm WhereEl CafeTazo, 3087 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94103 (map) Description: This elected group is the equivalent to other political parties Central Committee. The San Franciso... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR THIS THURSDAY We’re so honored to have the opportunity to host Mahmoud Khalil alongside his lawyer Mark Van Der Hout. ️ 4/23 Thursday SFSU Knuth Hall ⏰ DOORS OPEN: 3:30 pm (Start at 4:00 pm) On March 8th 2025, Mahmoud Khalil was kidnapped and illegally arrested... Continue reading →
When you volunteer for Saikat, it’s on us to give you a great experience and a genuine chance to make a difference. We don’t want to waste a second of your time. That’s why we’re always optimizing. And I’m excited to report that this Saturday we talked with 300% more... Continue reading →
San Francisco – Communities Not Cages: National Day of Action to Stop ICE Warehouse Detention Solidarity Event · Volunteer organized Time Saturday, April 25 12 – 2pm PDT Location In front of San Francisco Tesla, corner of Van Ness and O’Farrell St. 999 Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94109 Map About... Continue reading →
Trump Regime Takedown: Every Saturday Saturday, March 7, 2026 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Tesla San Francisco999 Van Ness AvenueSan Francisco, CA, 94109United States (map) Google Calendar ICS Keep democracy alive every Saturday by showing up, taking a stand, and sticking together for the long haul. Standing together is better than standing alone. Let’s get together... Continue reading →
This Sunday’s Town Hall: Announcing This Week’s Progressive Town Hall: Every Sunday at 4pm ET/1pm PT RSVP HERE Join PDA activists online from across the country to discuss the importance of progressives reclaiming the American story from the MAGA right, an issue of heightened importance as we’re now within one... Continue reading →
