Amid intensifying tensions over President Trump’s announcements about deploying federal troops to Portland, Oregon, state Rep. Janelle Bynum has emerged with a fierce message of resistance. In a video statement, Bynum confronted the administration’s posture of force by insisting that before the president sends soldiers into Oregon, he should first “run us our money”—that is, deliver on funds promised to the state.
“It’s Rep. Bynum here,” she begins, addressing the president directly. “Before you send one troop to Portland: Give us our money back for our roads. Give us our money back for our election systems. Give us our money that we were promised for our water.” She continues: “All you can do is send troops, all you can send is mothers’ babies, all you can send is goons, but you can’t run us our money? You’re a coward.”
Her remarks are resonating across Oregon’s political landscape as local and state leaders push back on what they view as federal overreach. In interviews and coverage of the controversy, Bynum and others have framed the troop deployment not as a necessary public safety measure, but as symbolic aggression—a calculated display of power directed at a city and state that have not requested military assistance. spokesman.com
In an Instagram reel quoting similar language, Bynum’s message has been amplified to audiences outside local media markets: “Stay out of my city. You want to do something? Run us our money.” Instagram Meanwhile, her official channels and social media presence reiterate the criticism that “Trump has taken away money for projects across Oregon and given it to billionaires. If he actually wants to do something for us, he can run us our money.” X (formerly Twitter)
The rhetoric captures multiple dimensions of the debate: the tension between federal authority and state sovereignty; the frustration over funding shortfalls; and the emotional weight of military symbolism being used against a U.S. city. For Bynum and her allies, it is not enough to debate troop numbers or the legal basis for deployment—there must also be accountability for fiscal promises and support to communities that feel underserved.
Bynum’s invocation of “mothers’ babies” and “goons” is deliberately provocative, meant to underscore how she sees the administration’s approach: a tactic of coercion rather than partnership. In her telling, the president displays little concern for the daily civic advancements a city like Portland needs—roads, elections, water systems—yet is willing to deploy armed forces as though they are the first response.
Her framing aligns with broader resistance from Oregon officials. Governor Tina Kotek has bluntly said that Portland doesn’t need troops, and local mayors across Oregon have joined in condemning the move as unrequested and unjustified. Politico+1
Whether Bynum’s demand for funds or her pushback on troop deployment gains traction in federal decision-making remains to be seen. But her voice is already a prominent one in the larger struggle over how much authority the White House can exert, and how much leverage states possess in responding to it. In Oregon today, the question isn’t just “Will troops go to Portland?” but also “Will the promises to Oregon be honored before any military show of force is imposed?”