Trump’s D.C. National Guard Deployment Was Unlawful, Federal Court Finds

A federal court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington D.C. was likely unlawful and inflicted serious harm on the District’s right to govern itself.

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, appointed by former President Joe Biden, found that the Trump administration overstepped the law when it deployed more than 2,000 Guard members into D.C. streets for routine patrols.

A separate ruling earlier this week temporarily blocked Tennessee’s National Guard deployment in Memphis, finding that Gov. Bill Lee (R) “acted beyond his authority.” Lee initiated the deployment into Memphis in coordination with Trump and also sent Tennessee’s troops to D.C. at his request.

“First, the DOD Defendants have exceeded the bounds of their authority under Title 49 of the D.C. Code, and thus acted contrary to law, in deploying the DCNG for non-military, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city’s civil authorities,” the judge wrote. “Second, these Defendants lack statutory authority under 32 U.S.C. § 502 to support their request for assistance from out-of-state National Guards and their actions in calling those Guards to the District.”

The ruling rejected Trump’s assertion that he can independently mobilize the D.C. National Guard for local policing. 

“Nor does the President have an Article II power that can override Congress’s statutory scheme governing the District,” the judge explained, making it clear that Congress — not the president — controls the circumstances in which the D.C. Guard may be deployed. 

The administration’s legal theory, the judge noted, attempted to transform a narrow training statute into sweeping authority. The judge also emphasized that the city’s democratic powers were being actively undermined.

“Defendants do not explain why Congress would bury such an expansive authority—in their view, a more flexible version of Title 10—in a subsection of a statute in a chapter focused on training,” the judge added. “The Court finds that the District’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by Defendants’ actions in deploying the Guards, and that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in the District’s favor.”

In granting relief, the judge underscored the public interest in halting unlawful federal overreach. 

“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action,” the court concluded. “There is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.”

The order blocking further deployment is stayed until Dec. 11, giving the Trump administration time to appeal, but the legal findings — that Trump’s troop deployment into D.C. was unlawful and harmed local self-government — stand.

Trump has pursued similar troop deployments in other major cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Civil rights advocates have described this pattern as authoritarian escalation meant to assert the president’s control over domestic law enforcement.

Adeline Tolle contributed to this reporting.