Former Illinois Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger didn’t hold back in mocking conservative commentator Dan Brisbois after Brisbois attacked a judge for ruling that President Trump had not adequately shown the United States was under “invasion.” Kinzinger derided the critics as “dill balls” in a blistering post on X.
In her recent ruling, Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting the deployment of National Guard troops, whether from Oregon itself or from other states, to Portland. Her ruling came after Oregon and city officials sued to stop Trump’s deployment, arguing the protests around an ICE facility in Portland had not justified using military force.
Immergut found that the demonstrations had been “small and uneventful” in the days and weeks before the president’s order, and that sending troops would implicate constitutional and statutory limits on federal involvement in domestic law enforcement.
On October 6, Kinzinger replied to Brisbois’s commentary about Immergut’s decision: “They are commander in chief of the constitution dill balls.” The retort came after Brisbois accused Judge Immergut of effectively declaring herself “Commander-in-Chief” by blocking Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon.
One comment expanded on Kinzinger’s point: “Not to mention the fact that THE Commander-in-Chief is, at least theoretically, supposed to follow the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land.”
What was Immergut’s ruling?
Not to mention the fact that THE Commander-in-Chief is, at least theoretically, is supposed to follow the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land.
— Russ Hjelm (@russ_hjelm) October 6, 2025
Immergut is a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Oregon. Trump appointed her in his first term. In her ruling, she questioned the administration’s justification for claiming an “invasion.” She observed that Trump’s decision appeared “untethered to the facts on the ground” and that there was no clear evidence of violent unrest or threat sufficient to warrant such a militarized response.
The controversy centers on Trump’s claim that federalizing troops was necessary to “defend federal property” amid protests. Brisbois, in his post, argued the president had statutory and constitutional authority to deploy forces and accused Immergut of judicial overreach. As Brisbois wrote, “She’s rewriting the Constitution … the President has full statutory and constitutional authority … these judges think they run the country now.”
But Kinzinger’s mocking response came as part of a larger pushback from critics who say the administration’s narrative of widespread violence or insurrection is exaggerated to justify a military state. By ridiculing Brisbois’s framing, Kinzinger positioned himself as defending the judicial check against what he apparently views as an abuse of power. In the days ahead, the case is likely to move to appeals. Trump has already stated that he will challenge the rulings in higher courts.
