A legal battle over the continued deployment of National Guard troops in the capital was spotlighted during a hearing in federal court in D.C. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenged President Donald Trump’s authority to maintain the Guard’s presence, citing constitutional and economic concerns.
More than two months after the National Guard was deployed to D.C., attorneys representing the District and President Donald Trump’s administration argued in U.S. court on Friday over the troops’ continued stay in the nation’s capital.
Near the end of the more than two and a half hour hearing, Judge Jia Cobb decided not to rule on the case, saying she would review the arguments before ruling.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration in September, seeking an order that would remove more than 2,000 Guard members and send them back to their home states.
It follows President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring a crime emergency in the District in August. Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and Washington were patrolling under the command of the Army secretary. Trump has also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.
Legal confrontation over deployment
On Friday, lawyers defending the district argued in court that there is no statute for the continued deployment in DC and that Trump is limited in what he can deploy troops to.
Under previous militia laws, the president lacks the authority to vet Guard members from other states.
Attorney Mitchell Reich, representing the district, said another state’s troops cannot be sent to D.C. to police its citizens without authorization. He argued that the Home Rule Act gave DC some sovereignty that requires some notification before it can be deployed.
Finally, DC attorneys said the Guard’s continued presence in DC will hurt the city economically with a weaker tourism season while ruining the reputation of the city’s law enforcement. Reich said members of the D.C. Police Department are wasting resources by training Guard members to be police officers they should not be policing.
Instead, Reich argued that resources shifted to ensure the National Guard can do its job effectively pose a threat to public safety.
In response, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton said the president is the commander-in-chief of the DC National Guard; he has broad scope in deploying these forces in the district; and the mayor has no veto power. He added that troops only support police and do not participate in law enforcement functions, such as making arrests, indictments and searches and seizures.
Hamilton called the lawsuit against Schwalb a “political stunt” after filing it a day after an executive order from Mayor Muriel Bowser establishing a center to manage the federal government’s involvement in law enforcement in the city.
However, Judge Cobb asked Justice Department attorneys several times about the president’s restrictions on the use of the National Guard in the district. They responded that he has broad authority, based on the powers given to him by Congress, and that D.C. is not a state and has no sovereignty.
Court documents filed ahead of the hearing suggest troops have been ordered to prepare for a “long-term, sustained presence” in the district, possibly through next summer in conjunction with the “America 250” celebration.
Hamilton confirmed that emails have been sent stating there may be an extension beyond November 30, but a final end date has never been scheduled.
Free DC rally calls on Guard members to ‘go home’
Before the hearing, the Free DC organization organized a rally outside the courthouse calling for the end of “the occupation” of the Guard in DC. Several protesters brought signs telling the Guard to leave as they sang songs and marched to the 3rd Street entrance to the courthouse, blocking traffic for several minutes.
Slobodan Milic, who has lived in the District full-time for three years, told WTOP that having troops in DC does not build trust among residents. He remembered having to explain to his children why they saw Guard members with rifles and long weapons.
“They don’t want to be here,” Milic said. “It’s not good for their reputation. It’s not good for the spirit of the armed forces to be seen as politicized and instrumentalized by the government.”
After the hearing, Schwalb told the media that D.C. is not safer with out-of-state Guard members who are not trained to do police work and are unfamiliar with the area, like D.C. police.
Reports of Guards members conducting beautification projects in D.C. and picking up trash are “not a good use of their time, and it’s not what they signed up for,” he said.
“The military has nothing to do with civilian surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil,” Schwalb said. “That is the most important issue in this case, one that we have been confident in under the law since we filed the lawsuit. … It is time for us to allow National Guardsmen to go home to their homes.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Get the latest news and daily headlines in your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2025 WTOP. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
#Trump #Administration #clash #court #National #Guard #deployment #District #WTOP #News