In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing standoff between federal and local authorities, the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit on September 4, 2025, to challenge President Donald Trump’s deployment of more than 2,200 National Guard troops from seven states and D.C. itself. The move, which city officials have described as an “involuntary military occupation,” has ignited a fierce debate over the limits of presidential power, the autonomy of the nation’s capital, and the use of military force in domestic law enforcement.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, contends that the deployment is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement and violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Home Rule Act of 1973. “No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” Schwalb wrote in his 52-page filing, according to the Associated Press. The complaint paints a stark picture: “Over 2,200 National Guard troops from seven states and the District of Columbia are currently patrolling the streets of the District dressed in military fatigues, carrying rifles, and driving armored vehicles.”
Schwalb’s lawsuit further alleges that the Pentagon placed these troops under federal command and that the U.S. Marshals Service deputized them to perform “core law enforcement activities,” including presence patrols, community patrols, searches, seizures, and arrests. “The residents and leaders of the District of Columbia have not requested any of this,” the complaint asserts, highlighting the city’s lack of consent for the operation.
The deployment began on August 11, 2025, after President Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington. The White House has maintained that the move is necessary to protect federal assets and assist local law enforcement in reining in violent crime. “This 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.,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, defending the administration’s actions.
President Trump has taken credit for what he describes as a successful crackdown on crime in the capital, touting the National Guard surge as a model for other cities. He has announced plans to deploy similar military interventions in Chicago and Baltimore, despite strong opposition from officials in those Democratic-led cities. “The weekslong surge in Washington has reined in crime,” Trump stated, pointing to a sharp drop in offenses such as carjackings. However, as AP and The Guardian report, city data and critics note that crime was already on the decline before the military intervention began.
Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has walked a careful line—acknowledging that crime has dropped during the military presence, but also emphasizing that the trend started before the National Guard’s arrival. Her focus, she said, is on preparing for when the emergency ends, which, under current law, is set for September 10, 2025, unless Congress votes to extend it. Orders for the National Guard have already been extended through December, a clear sign that the federal government expects the operation to continue for months.
Not everyone in the District’s leadership is willing to accept the federal incursion. D.C. Councilmember Robert White, speaking at a Free DC “Federal Forces Out Now” news conference on Capitol Hill, offered a passionate critique: “They are here to catch them, to condemn them, to take away their rights,” he said, describing how his own daughters view the military presence. White insisted that history would judge the city’s response to what he called an “authoritarian takeover,” urging fellow leaders to “stand together not in fear, not in compliance, but against an authoritarian takeover of our city.”
The legal battle is complicated by recent federal court decisions. On September 2, 2025, a judge in California ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after protests in June was illegal. While the administration is appealing that decision, the ruling does not directly apply to Washington, D.C., where the president has greater authority over the National Guard than he does in the states. Nonetheless, the California case has emboldened critics of the D.C. deployment and added fuel to the city’s legal arguments.
Schwalb’s lawsuit is the second he has filed against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the military. The suit claims the federal government is unlawfully asserting control over state militias without formally bringing them into federal service, a move Schwalb argues breaches both the Constitution and federal law. The complaint also warns that the deployment threatens to erode trust between residents and police, stoke tensions, and harm the local economy—particularly in the restaurant and hospitality sectors.
On the ground, the National Guard’s presence has been impossible to ignore. Troops have been seen patrolling neighborhoods in armored vehicles, conducting law enforcement activities, and even engaging in less conventional tasks such as raking leaves, picking up litter, and clearing homeless camps. These scenes have led some residents to question whether the operation is truly focused on crime reduction or if it is, as critics claim, an attempt to assert federal authority over a city long denied full self-governance.
The deployment has also resulted in a surge of arrests, with federal prosecutors pressing serious charges for offenses that experts say would normally be treated as misdemeanors. In one widely reported incident, a grand jury declined to indict a man accused of throwing a sandwich at a law enforcement agent, apparently in protest of the military presence. Such episodes have only deepened skepticism about the true aims of the operation.
Despite the legal and political backlash, President Trump remains undeterred. He has made it clear that he views the D.C. operation as a template for future interventions in other cities facing spikes in violent crime. Several Republican-led states have even contributed National Guard troops to the D.C. deployment, further blurring the lines between federal and state authority.
As the September 10 expiration date for the federal deployment approaches, all eyes are on Congress to see whether the emergency will be extended. For now, D.C. leaders, residents, and legal experts are bracing for a protracted battle over the future of the city’s autonomy and the scope of presidential power in times of crisis.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications—not only for the District of Columbia, but for cities across the nation grappling with questions of federal intervention, civil liberties, and the role of the military in American life. The stakes, as many see it, could hardly be higher.
