On December 17, 2025, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed President Donald Trump’s administration a significant—though temporary—legal victory, allowing thousands of National Guard troops to remain on the streets of the nation’s capital. The decision, delivered unanimously by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, paused a lower court’s order that would have forced the withdrawal of the troops, and set the stage for a protracted legal battle over the president’s authority in the federal district.
The deployment of the National Guard began in August 2025, when President Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., citing rising violence and unrest, particularly in response to protests against his administration’s immigration policies. Trump’s order not only bolstered federal law enforcement and immigration agencies but also temporarily took over the city’s police department, a move that drew immediate and heated opposition from local officials.
According to The Washington Post, the appellate panel—comprised of Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao (both Trump appointees) and Judge Patricia Millett (an Obama appointee)—stressed that the District of Columbia’s unique legal status as a federal district, rather than a state, grants the president unusual authority. As the court wrote, “Because the District of Columbia is a federal district created by Congress, rather than a constitutionally sovereign entity like the fifty States, the Defendants appear on this early record likely to prevail on the merits of their argument that the President possesses a unique power within the District — the seat of the federal government — to mobilize the Guard.”
The court’s decision allows the National Guard, which had swelled to nearly 3,200 troops by December—including about 900 from the D.C. National Guard and additional units from 11 Republican-led states—to remain on duty in Washington until at least late February 2026. The deployment was intensified in the wake of a tragic shooting on November 26, 2025, just before Thanksgiving, when Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan immigrant and former CIA contractor, shot and killed Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and wounded Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe near the White House. The attack shocked the city and prompted President Trump to request 500 more troops, further escalating the federal presence.
As reported by NBC Washington, scenes of National Guard members patrolling landmarks like Gallery Place Metro Station became commonplace. The legal struggle over their presence, however, never faded from the headlines. Earlier, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb had ruled that Trump’s deployment unlawfully intruded on the District’s authority, ordering the withdrawal of the troops. Cobb’s ruling was put on hold for 21 days to allow an appeal, but the appellate court paused her order before it could take effect, allowing the deployment to continue.
The legal arguments at play are complex. The D.C. attorney general’s office, led by Brian Schwalb, contended that federal officials had trained National Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties—such as handcuffing and detaining residents or executing search warrants—violating city laws that prohibit military involvement in civilian policing except under extraordinary circumstances. Schwalb argued, “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 appellate judges, however, found the Trump administration’s arguments persuasive enough to maintain the status quo. They noted that removing the troops now, only to potentially redeploy them if the administration ultimately prevails, would cause significant disruption. “Absent a stay, the preliminary relief is likely to result in a profound level of disruption to the lives of thousands of service members who have been deployed for four months already, and the President’s order implicates a strong and distinctive interest in the protection of federal governmental functions and property within the Nation’s capital,” the panel wrote, as cited by the Associated Press.
The judges also rejected the District’s claim that the National Guard’s presence was causing irreparable harm, stating there were no “concrete signs” of such harm. Instead, they emphasized the potential chaos and hardship that would result from on-again, off-again deployments for service members, their families, and their employers.
Yet, the ruling did not resolve the underlying legal questions. The appeals court acknowledged that major arguments raised by D.C. officials—including whether the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement—still require full examination. The court pointedly declined to address whether National Guard units were engaged in law enforcement activities, leaving that issue for future litigation.
The controversy over the D.C. deployment is not isolated. Throughout 2025, President Trump ordered National Guard deployments to at least five other cities, often over the objections of local leaders. In Los Angeles, thousands of Guard members and 700 Marines were sent following protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, though the troops left after a series of legal battles. In Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, similar deployments sparked both support and opposition, with courts in some jurisdictions blocking or limiting the administration’s actions. In Chicago, a federal appeals court ultimately blocked the deployment after finding the administration had overstated the need for troops.
According to The New York Times, the White House’s ability to keep a large and visible force in Washington was due in part to the city’s unique legal status. While the National Guard deployment is currently set to expire on February 28, 2026, the Justice Department has suggested that it could be extended into the summer, depending on the outcome of ongoing litigation.
As the debate rages on, the deployment has become a flashpoint for broader questions about presidential power, federalism, and the proper role of the military in American civic life. Supporters argue that the president must have the tools to protect federal property and maintain order in the capital, especially in times of crisis. Critics warn that turning to the military for domestic law enforcement risks undermining democratic norms and blurring the crucial line between civilian and military authority.
The final word on the legality of the National Guard’s presence in Washington, D.C. will likely come from the Supreme Court or further appeals. For now, the city remains under the watchful eye of thousands of troops, their future—and the boundaries of presidential power—hanging in the balance as the nation awaits a definitive ruling.
