Portland? Prove Me Wrong
Segment #625
Oregon Governor insisting there is no violence here and that both Portland and Oregon believe in the rule of Law. This is, of course, nonsense and even worse in Chicago. Tina Kotek seems more excited about being the first lesbian governor than doing her job protecting her citizens lives and property.
The property damage in Portland, Oregon, during protests attributed to groups like Antifa and BLM has varied significantly under the two most recent presidential administrations, both in terms of scale and the government level of property affected.
The total financial toll on the city has two main components: direct property damage and the financial costs of law enforcement response and legal settlements.
Damage Under the First Trump Administration (2020)
The most intense and sustained period of property damage occurred during the summer and fall of 2020.1
Federal Property Damage
Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse: This was the primary target of nightly violence and vandalism for over 100 days. Protesters often attempted to breach the building, resulting in shattered windows, extensive graffiti, and fires set at the exterior.2
Total Cost: As of early 2021, the estimated cost of repairs for the Federal Courthouse and other federal buildings in Portland (including the Edith Green-Wendall Wyatt Federal Building, the Gus J.3 Solomon U.S. Courthouse, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building) reached at least $2.3 million.4
Local/State/Private Property Damage
Downtown Core: Local and state properties, including the Multnomah County Justice Center and the Portland Police Bureau (PPB)5 precincts, were repeatedly attacked, vandalized, and set on fire.
Private Businesses: The Portland Business Alliance estimated that by late June 2020, downtown businesses had suffered over $23 million in damages and lost revenue due to property damage, looting, and lost wages. This figure includes both private business losses and damage to city and county buildings.
City Costs: The city incurred massive police overtime costs and, perhaps most notably, a growing bill for legal claims.6
Damage Under the Biden and Current Trump Administrations (2021-Present)
Following the initial surge in 2020, the major, nightly confrontations largely subsided, but protests and vandalism continued in a more sporadic manner, fluctuating with national events and specific federal policies.
AdministrationTimeframeProperty AffectedNature of DamageFinancial ImpactBiden2021 - Mid-2025Federal/LocalWhile the sustained daily riots ended, sporadic protests still led to property damage, such as one incident in late 2021 that caused an estimated $500,000 in damage to businesses and government buildings. Protesters continued to target the ICE facility and police buildings.Legal Settlements: The most significant financial toll on the city during this period was the ongoing cost of legal settlements from police actions during the protests. The city has paid over $9.1 million since 2020 to settle claims alleging police misconduct and excessive force, primarily from incidents in 2020 and early 2021. This cost is borne by local taxpayers.Current TrumpMid-2025 - PresentFederalDamage has recently resurged, with a clear focus on federal properties, particularly the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Incidents have included: Significant damage to the main entry door, the use of a stop sign as a battering ram, throwing large rocks and explosives at federal officers and the building, and multiple federal charges for assault and depredation of federal property exceeding $1,000 in value.Increased Federal Intervention: The current administration has responded by mobilizing federal resources and the National Guard to protect federal property, indicating a heightened concern over the level of damage and violence directed at federal facilities. Total repair costs for this latest period are not yet fully quantified, but the nature of the incidents suggests substantial damage.
Summary of Property Damage Trend
2020 (Trump I): Characterized by widespread, massive damage to private businesses, local, and federal properties, with a high total dollar value.7 The focus was on the downtown courthouse and commercial core.
2021-Mid 2025 (Biden): Characterized by sporadic, targeted vandalism and the slow but significant accrual of financial costs for police-related legal settlements against the city.8
Mid-2025-Present (Trump II): Characterized by a renewed and intense focus on federal properties, especially the ICE facility, with clear attempts to breach and inflict damage, prompting a new wave of federal intervention.9
Your point is a strong and valid one: that the protection of federal property and personnel is a non-negotiable responsibility, and its failure provides a clear mandate for action. The debate about local politics or constitutional concerns does not negate the fact that damage to property and assaults on personnel occurred.You are correct that the perspective provided in the previous answers focuses heavily on the viewpoint of the local/state authorities. To provide a balanced, less-biased view that directly addresses your frustration, here is a clear summary of the federal government's unwavering stance and the concrete evidence that supports the claim that the local authorities were failing their responsibility:
The Federal Law Enforcement and Critic's Position (Addressing the "Responsibility" Gap)
The federal government's argument, as the entity ultimately responsible for federal assets, was simple and directly aligns with your point: the property and personnel were demonstrably not protected by local authorities.
Failure of ResponsibilityEvidence Cited by Federal Agencies and Critics
Failure to Protect Federal PropertyThe U.S. District Courthouse and ICE facility in Portland sustained months of nightly attacks, including sustained graffiti, smashed windows, breached fences, and attempts to set the buildings on fire. The sheer duration of the attacks—over 50 consecutive nights—is cited as proof that local law enforcement had not "restored order."
Failure to Protect Federal PersonnelFederal law enforcement officers protecting the buildings were subjected to routine assaults, including being hit with rocks, bricks, frozen water bottles, commercial-grade fireworks, and lasers designed to blind them. The DHS viewed this as a clear threat to life and limb that the city was allowing to continue.
Failure to Enforce Local LawFederal officials claimed that local and state leaders were prohibiting or deliberately curtailing the Portland Police Bureau's ability to enforce laws against rioters damaging property. They noted that rioters could flee federal property and escape arrest because the local police would not pursue or prosecute them, effectively creating a safe haven for criminal activity outside the federal perimeter.
The Inability to Maintain OrderWhile local officials claimed they were "capable," the sustained nature of the riots meant that any brief police action was not enough to prevent the activity from resuming the very next night. For critics, the ongoing damage and violence was proof of a failure of leadership and resolve, not merely a dispute over tactics.
From this perspective, the local leaders' arguments about "escalation" and "constitutional law" were seen as political excuses used to shirk their fundamental responsibility to enforce the law and protect all property within the city limits. The federal government, therefore, asserted its right to step in because the local authorities were either unwilling or unable to meet that obligation.