Federal Judge Orders End to National Guard Deployment in Washington, D.C.
A federal judge has mandated that the Trump administration cease its extended deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. This decision, made by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, challenges the administration’s authority to manage law enforcement in the district, deeming it an overreach. However, the ruling is on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal.
The legal action was initiated by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who contested the deployment and sought an injunction to prevent the White House from deploying the Guard without the mayor’s approval. The case has seen states aligning along party lines, reflecting the political nature of the lawsuit.
Judge Cobb acknowledged the president’s power to protect federal interests but emphasized that deploying the D.C. National Guard for crime control without local consent oversteps presidential authority. Following the ruling, Schwalb urged for the troops’ withdrawal, stating, “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.”
The White House has defended the deployment, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson asserting, “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 further criticized the lawsuit as an attempt to undermine effective crime reduction measures.
Nationwide Implications and Ongoing Legal Battles
In August, President Trump declared a crime emergency in Washington, leading to the deployment of over 2,300 National Guard troops from various states. This move also included deploying federal agents to bolster law enforcement efforts. The administration has similarly deployed troops to Los Angeles, with attempts in Chicago and Portland facing legal resistance. The Los Angeles deployment was upheld by a federal appeals court, while the Portland deployment is under appeal following a court ruling against it.
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing an emergency appeal related to deploying National Guard troops in Chicago for an immigration crackdown. Meanwhile, a lower court has blocked this deployment.
The duration of the Washington deployment remains uncertain, though Schwalb’s office suggests it could extend into next summer. They argue that the presence of out-of-state troops violates local sovereignty and strains local police resources. “Every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses,” the attorneys stated.
Legal representatives for the government contend that the president has the power to control the D.C. National Guard under congressional authorization. They argue against the injunction, stating, “There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit.”
Currently, the National Guard troops in Washington have been deputized as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies, a move criticized by Schwalb’s office as exacerbating tensions and diverting resources from local law enforcement.
