A federal judge has determined that President Donald Trump’s large scale deployment of National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., violated federal law and improperly overrode the District’s authority. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, strikes at the centerpiece of Trump’s effort to position thousands of troops in the capital under the claim of combating a crime emergency.
The order addresses the deployment Trump launched in August, when he announced a national crime crisis and insisted that the capital was facing what he described as an unstoppable wave of lawlessness. At the time, however, crime in the District was “falling precipitously” and was at a “30-year low.” Despite objections from D.C. officials, the administration moved forward. Within weeks, more than 2,300 National Guard members from eight states and the District were patrolling city streets, supervised by the Secretary of the Army and operating alongside hundreds of federal agents.
Judge Cobb wrote that the administration “exceeded the bounds of their authority” and “acted contrary to law” when it deployed the Guard “for nonmilitary, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city’s civil authorities.” She ruled that the deployment intruded on D.C.’s right to direct its own law enforcement operations.
Her ruling underscored that the Constitution gives Congress ultimate authority over the District, and that the president’s Article II powers do not permit unilateral military policing inside the city. She wrote that the court “rejects defendants’ fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the president’s Article II authority would erase Congress’ role in governing the district and its National Guard.” Cobb also concluded that the Pentagon did not have statutory authority to send more than 1,000 out of state Guard members into Washington. She stated that “the district’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by defendants’ actions in deploying the guards.”
Although she found the deployment unlawful, Cobb allowed the troops to remain temporarily. She put her order on hold for 21 days to give the administration time to appeal and set December 11 as the deadline for filing that appeal. She emphasized the broader stakes in her ruling, writing, “There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” She continued, “There is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.”
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in early September by District Attorney General Brian Schwalb. After the ruling was issued, Schwalb said, “The court has ruled that the National Guard deployment to D.C. is illegal and granted a preliminary injunction.” He added, “As we made clear from the start: The U.S. military should not police American citizens on American soil. This is a victory for D.C., home rule, and American democracy.”
Schwalb warned that the broader use of National Guard troops for policing poses serious risks. He said, “Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, where the President can disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants — with no check on his military power.” His office wrote in filings that “our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” and stated that “every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses.”
Dozens of states joined the case, dividing sharply along party lines in their support for either the administration or the District. The presence of out of state Guard troops also drew scrutiny, particularly after the administration deputized them as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies.
The White House defended its approach. In a statement, spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks.” She called the lawsuit “nothing more than another attempt—at the detriment of D.C. residents—to undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in D.C.”
Government attorneys backed the president’s legal position. They argued that “Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation,” and stated that “there is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit.”
The court’s decision comes as the administration faces additional challenges to its domestic Guard deployments. It has already sent troops to Los Angeles, where a federal appeals court allowed the deployment to continue. It also attempted to deploy troops into Portland, Oregon, but a judge blocked that effort, finding the president lacked the authority to call up or deploy National Guard members there. The administration is appealing that decision. In Chicago, the Supreme Court is considering an emergency request to permit a deployment aimed at supporting an immigration crackdown, although a lower court has indefinitely prevented it.
In Washington, the timeline for removing troops remains uncertain. Attorneys from Schwalb’s office said the Guard presence may remain through at least next summer as the appeal proceeds.
The ruling marks one of the most significant judicial rejections of Trump’s domestic military actions. It reinforces limits on presidential authority to deploy troops inside U.S. cities and raises questions about how future courts will respond to similar attempts. The outcome of the administration’s appeal, along with ongoing cases in Portland and Chicago, will determine whether the limits described by Judge Cobb remain intact or whether higher courts will broaden presidential power over the National Guard.
COMMENTS