It’s not every day that Washington, D.C. finds itself at the center of a constitutional tug-of-war, but recent weeks have seen the nation’s capital transformed into a stage for one of the most consequential legal battles over federal power in years. On December 17, 2025, a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted President Donald Trump the authority to continue his deployment of National Guard troops in the city, putting on hold a lower court order that would have required the removal of thousands of service members from D.C.’s streets.
The ruling, reported by CNN, Law&Crime, and Beritaja, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over presidential authority, public safety, and the unique status of the District of Columbia. The deployment, which began in August 2025 at Trump’s direction, was intended, according to the administration, “to address violent crime and to ensure public safety” in the federal district. More than 2,000 troops have been stationed in D.C. since then, drawn from both the local militia and at least 11 Republican-led states.
But the presence of these troops has not gone unchallenged. In September, D.C. officials, led by the city’s attorney general, filed a lawsuit alleging that the president’s actions violated constitutional limits and the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs agency actions. The case quickly moved through the courts, with U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb—an appointee of President Joe Biden—initially siding with the city and issuing a preliminary injunction in November to halt the deployment. However, Judge Cobb also put her own order on hold until December 11, setting the stage for a rapid-fire series of appeals.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision this week, authored in part by Judge Patricia Millett (an Obama appointee) and joined by Trump appointees Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, swept aside the lower court’s injunction and allowed the troops to remain in the city, at least until late February 2026. The panel’s reasoning turned on the district’s unique status as a “federal enclave.” Unlike the fifty states, D.C. is not a sovereign entity, but rather a district created by Congress to serve as the seat of the federal government. As the court explained, “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.”
This distinction proved crucial. The judges acknowledged that deploying National Guard troops from one state into another without that state’s consent would raise “myriad constitutional issues.” But, they wrote, “the only issue that was before the district court and is now before this court is whether the President could request such deployments to the District of Columbia, which is not a sovereign State, but instead is a unique federal district that serves as the Capital of the United States and the seat of the federal government.”
Adding weight to the administration’s case, the appeals court noted that D.C. law itself authorizes the National Guard to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law. “The D.C. Code contemplates in multiple provisions that the D.C. Guard may be ordered to ‘aid the civil authorities in the execution of the laws,’” the court stated, further clarifying that the president’s statutory authority over the D.C. Guard is not limited by requirements that a request come from the mayor or other local officials.
The backdrop to these legal maneuvers has been anything but abstract. The deployment has come under renewed scrutiny following a tragic shooting on November 26, 2025, in which two National Guard members were attacked just blocks from the White House. One, Sarah Beckstrom of the West Virginia National Guard, died from her injuries, while another remains in critical condition. According to Beritaja and NPR, this targeted attack prompted the administration to bolster troop levels in the city even further, with hundreds of additional Guard members arriving in the aftermath.
For the thousands of service members deployed in D.C.—many of whom have now been stationed there for over four months—the appeals court’s decision means a continued presence in the capital as the legal fight plays out. Judge Millett, writing for the panel, observed that without the court’s intervention, there would be a “profound level of disruption to the lives of thousands of service members who have been deployed for four months already.”
Yet, the court’s ruling in Washington stands in contrast to developments in other Democratic-led cities. In Los Angeles, for example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a federal judge’s decision to end President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops, effectively blocking the use of remaining troops in the city as of early December 2025. According to Beritaja, while the troops in Los Angeles remain under federal authority, they are no longer actively deployed on city streets and have instead been moved to a military installation for training exercises.
Meanwhile, a separate legal battle over Trump’s deployment of troops to Chicago is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring the national scope and high stakes of the issue. The legal challenges in Oregon and Illinois have raised “serious doubts” about the lawfulness of deploying out-of-state Guard units to non-consenting states, with the D.C. Circuit explicitly calling such moves “constitutionally troubling to our federal system of government.”
The D.C. case, however, is different. The appeals court’s order not only allows the deployment to continue but hints that the administration is likely to prevail on the underlying legal merits. As reported by CNN, “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’s 3-0 order, issued on December 17, 2025, is a clear boost to President Trump’s broader efforts to use federal military forces in cities led by Democratic officials—a strategy that has drawn both strong support and fierce criticism across the political spectrum.
For supporters of the president, the ruling affirms the federal government’s responsibility to maintain order and protect the capital. They argue that the surge in violent crime and the recent attack on Guard members justify extraordinary measures. Critics, on the other hand, see the deployment as an overreach of executive power and a dangerous precedent for federal intervention in local affairs. They warn that the use of out-of-state troops—especially without local consent—undermines democratic norms and threatens civil liberties.
As the appeals court gears up to consider the underlying merits of D.C.’s lawsuit in the coming weeks, the city remains in a state of heightened alert. National Guard troops, now stationed at undisclosed locations and conducting training exercises, are a visible reminder of the extraordinary times. The legal and political battles show no sign of abating, with the fate of the deployment—and the broader question of federal authority in the nation’s capital—hanging in the balance.
For now, the capital’s streets remain under the watchful eyes of the National Guard, as courts, politicians, and residents alike grapple with the implications of a decision that could shape the boundaries of federal power for years to come.
