D.C. Attorney General Sues to End National Guard Troops’ Policing Role
Washington, D.C., is suing the U.S. federal government to end National Guard deployments for law enforcement purposes in the District.
“Deploying the National Guard to engage in law enforcement is not only unnecessary and unwanted, but it is also dangerous and harmful to the District and its residents,” said D.C. (the District) Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb in a press release announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.
U.S. President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of the District’s National Guard on 11 August to respond to what he called a “crime emergency.” Troops were mobilized to assist both federal and local law enforcement personnel in enforcing the law and “taking violent criminals off the streets,” according to a U.S. Department of Defense press release.
“They’re all trained in de-escalation techniques, and of course, always retain the inherent right to self-defense,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson about the deployment. “They will not be arresting people, but they may temporarily limit the movement of an individual who has entered a restricted or secured area without permission. So, this would be very similar to the LA mission, where we could temporarily [detain] someone and then turn them over to the proper law enforcement authorities.”
Trump subsequently requested additional National Guard troops from seven other U.S. states to deploy to Washington, D.C., for a similar mission. There are now approximately 2,300 National Guard troops in the District deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to conduct law enforcement activity, including presence patrols and community patrols on the street and in transportation stations, while carrying firearms.
This deputization, however, is a violation of the prohibition of military involvement in local law enforcement, according to a statement from Schwalb’s office. The attorney general filed suit on Thursday to force the Trump administration to discontinue using the National Guard in this manner.
“No American city should have the U.S. military—particularly out-of-state military who are not accountable to the residents and untrained in local law enforcement—policing its streets,” Schwalb said. “It's D.C. today but could be any other city tomorrow. We’ve filed this action to put an end to this illegal federal overreach.”
What’s in the Lawsuit?
In the lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the attorney general said the federal government is violating the U.S. Constitution and federal laws in three main ways:
- Illegally using the military for law enforcement purposes
- Authorizing the National Guard to police the District without the District’s consent
- Illegally asserting federal command and control over National Guard troops that are in U.S. state militia status
In the United States, U.S. state governors are the commander-in-chief of their state’s National Guard. The lawsuit, argues, however, that state governors no longer have control of their National Guard troops since Trump has placed Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, and West Virginia National Guard troops under control of the U.S. Department of Defense for day-to-day supervision but has not placed these troops into active federal service.
“The President has not federalized any of the out-of-state forces he has foisted on the District,” according to the lawsuit. “The federal government therefore may not lawfully command them or control their day-to-day operations, as it is doing here.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the Trump administration’s use of National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. 275, which prohibits the use of military force in domestic law enforcement unless it is an extreme emergency such as an invasion or rebellion.
“These unprecedented, unlawful actions have subjected the District to serious and irreparable harm,” the lawsuit said. “The deployment of National Guard troops to police District streets without the District’s consent infringes on its sovereignty and right to self-governance. The deployment also risks inflaming tensions and fueling distrust toward local law enforcement. And it inflicts economic injuries, depressing business activities and tourism that form the backbone of the local economy and tax base.”
U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll approved a plan on Wednesday to extend orders for the Washington, D.C., National Guard to remain on active duty in the District through 30 November, ABC News reports.
The crime emergency declaration expires on 10 September, and it is unclear how long other National Guard troops will continue to be deployed in the District
The lawsuit was assigned to Judge Mia M. Cobb yesterday, and Schwalb has asked the court to declare the Trump administration’s illegal and award the District relief. (District of Columbia v. Trump et al, U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, No. 25-cv-03005-JMC, 2025)
Schwalb filed the lawsuit just days after a U.S. federal judge in California ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal. In that case, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using the National Guard to create protective perimeters, traffic blockades, and crowd control measures.
Breyer also warned that Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth run the risk of “creating a national police force with the president as its chief.” Breyer subsequently barred the National Guard from engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.
The ruling applies only to California and is on hold until 12 September. The Trump administration is expected to appeal, BBC News reports. (Gavin Newson, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 25-cv-04870-CRB, 2025)
What’s Next?
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to The New York Times that the D.C. lawsuit is “nothing more than another attempt—at the detriment of D.C. residents and visitors—to undermine the president’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in D.C.”
Prior to the crime emergency declaration on 11 August, D.C. was already experiencing a drop in violent crime compared to 2024 figures. The White House said that as of Tuesday, 2 September, 1,669 people have been arrested in D.C.—many for immigration-related offenses.
More than 1,050 defendants’ cases have gone to D.C.’s Superior Court, where prosecutors charged around 20 percent with felonies (such as drug and gun crimes), according to an NPR assessment of arrest and charge data. The rest of the charges were for misdemeanors, including warrants and traffic offenses, or prosecutors dropped the case.
Prosecutors are also running into an unusual problem of grand juries refusing to indict individuals accused of criminal activity—nearly unheard of since grand juries only hear evidence from prosecutors during this process.
“Grand jury proceedings are secret, so the reasons for their decisions don’t become public,” the Associated Press reports. “But the string of rebukes has fueled speculation that residents serving on grand juries are using their votes to protest against the White House’s surge.”
Meanwhile, Trump has suggested deploying National Guard troops to address crime in Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; and New Orleans, Louisiana.
