Judge Orders Trump To Remove National Guard From Washington
Judge Orders Trump To Remove National Guard From Washington, D.C.
In a sweeping rebuke of Donald Trump’s attempt to govern the nation’s capital by military force, a federal judge has ordered the administration to end its months-long National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C., declaring the operation “unlawful” and a violation of the District’s sovereign authority.
On Thursday, Nov. 20, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling, making it one of the most significant legal challenges yet to Trump’s expanding use of military personnel to police American cities. While Cobb paused her order for 21 days to allow the administration to appeal, her decision sends a clear message that the judiciary branch cannot sit idly by as the executive branch blurs the line between civilian governance and military occupation.
As previously reported in August, Trump initially ordered more than 2,000 National Guard troops into D.C. after unilaterally declaring a “crime emergency,” despite local officials repeatedly refuting the claim. Rather than crime-fighting, the deployment quickly evolved into a sprawling federal takeover that included Guard troops patrolling tourist corridors, trimming trees, “beautifying” streets, and, most controversially, performing law enforcement duties without the consent of the District’s mayor.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who filed the lawsuit challenging the takeover, argued that Trump had effectively staged a months-long military occupation under the guise of public safety, effectively sidelining local leaders, escalating tensions with residents, and transforming the Guard into a federal police force; and Judge Cobb agreed.
“The Court finds that the District’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by Defendants’ actions in deploying the Guards,” Judge Cobb wrote in her order. “At its core, Congress has given the District rights to govern itself. Those rights are infringed upon when Defendants approve, in excess of their statutory authority, the deployment of National Guard troops to the District.”
Judge Cobb also added that “the deployments at issue entail the day-to-day presence of more than 2,000 National Guard troops,” which is about two-thirds the size of the local police force.
“The Court finds no authority in Title 49 of the D.C. Code that supports the President’s ability to call out the (D.C. National Guard) to patrol the District under these circumstances,” Judge Cobb continued. “There is also the risk that this incursion may become permanent, or at least enduring, given the creation of a (D.C. National Guard) unit specifically established to conduct law enforcement in the District,” which the judge notes runs contrary to the statutes that govern their deployment.
The decision comes just days after a Tennessee state judge issued a temporary block on the mobilization of Guard forces in Memphis, and following the Defense Department decision over the weekend to order hundreds of troops to leave Chicago and Portland, Ore., as federal courts continue to keep those deployments stagnant.
Schwalb called the ruling a critical step toward restoring democratic norms, before noting the need for balance within the current administration.
“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,” Schwalb said in a statement. “This unprecedented federal overreach is not normal or legal. It is long past time to let the National Guard go home—to their everyday lives, their regular jobs, their families, and their children.”
The White House responded with defiance with White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson insisting that Trump was “well within his lawful authority” to command the illegal occupation, dismissing the lawsuit as an attempt to undermine “highly successful operations to stop violent crime.”
“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,” Jackson said. “This lawsuit is 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.”
But this case, like others unfolding nationwide, underscores the more troubling truth that Trump’s legal theory of presidential power relies on a near-limitless reading of executive authority, one that sidesteps long-standing constitutional norms and pushes the Guard into civilian policing roles explicitly restricted by law.
The courts have increasingly become the only institution placing limits on this experiment in creeping militarization. Federal judges in Portland, Chicago, Memphis, and Los Angeles have already blocked or constrained similar deployments, citing concerns over legality, federal overreach, and the erosion of local control.
Yet the Supreme Court, which is weighing Trump’s emergency appeal to deploy the Guard in Chicago, has shown little desire for restraining executive overreach, a deafening silence that leaves the burden on district and circuit courts.
Judge Cobb’s ruling is a reminder of what an independent judiciary is supposed to do—enforce the Constitution even when politics make it inconvenient, and especially when democracy itself is at stake.
As the 21-day stay ticks down, Trump prepares to appeal, raising the stakes even higher. If appellate courts, or ultimately the Supreme Court, decide to side with the administration, it could open the door for the President to deploy military forces into any American city without invitation, oversight, or legal limitation.
That is exactly why this ruling matters not just for D.C., but beyond.
If the nation’s highest court won’t step in to stop the continued push towards normalizing domestic deployments and authoritarianism, then lower courts must continue to assert their authority to stop it; as it remains one of the last guardrails against a presidency intent on testing and shattering the limits of lawful power.
Washington D.C. residents have won a crucial victory, but the broader fight over presidential authority, the legitimacy of military deployments on U.S. soil, and the integrity of American democracy is just beginning, and it will be waged in courtrooms across the country.
SEE ALSO:
Trump’s National Guard Deployment Is A Direct Attack On Black DC
