On November 10, 2025, a Kanawha County judge ruled that more than 300 West Virginia National Guard members could continue patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s sweeping initiative to deploy the National Guard to Democratic-led cities across the United States. The decision, delivered by Circuit Judge Richard D. Lindsay, came amid mounting legal and ethical debates over the scope and purpose of these deployments—a controversy that has reverberated from the nation’s capital to the ranks of the National Guard itself.
Judge Lindsay’s ruling followed a lawsuit brought by the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, which argued that Republican Governor Patrick Morrisey had overstepped state law when he authorized the Guard’s deployment in August at Trump’s request. The civic organization maintained that state law only permitted such out-of-state deployments for emergencies like natural disasters or at another state’s formal request, not for federal crime-fighting operations. But the judge disagreed, stating, “The question before this court is whether or not state law allows West Virginia to do this. The court has found that.” He added, “This court believes that the federal law allows for the request made by the president to the governor.” According to Army Times, the ruling effectively greenlights the governor’s decision, at least for now.
Jace Goins, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, telling reporters in Charleston, “The National Guard are going nowhere. They’re staying in D.C. They’re not going to be redeployed to West Virginia. The judge made the determination that the governor made a lawful decision deploying the National Guard to D.C. by a lawful request of the president.”
Not everyone saw it that way. Aubrey Sparks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s West Virginia chapter, voiced disappointment: “I think that West Virginia law is clear. I think what the state was permitted to do here is to skirt past West Virginia law simply because Trump asked them to. And that’s not how the law works. We remain deeply concerned about it.”
The West Virginia deployment is just one thread in a much larger tapestry. Over the summer and fall of 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders deploying National Guard units to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and several in Louisiana and Missouri, as reported by NPR. The stated aim: to crack down on violent crime and protect federal immigration facilities. In Washington, D.C., more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia have been patrolling the streets, with formal orders now extending the District’s own National Guard presence through the end of February 2026.
But the deployments have not been universally embraced—least of all by some of the Guard members themselves. In Ohio, for instance, a group of National Guard members has been quietly wrestling with the moral and professional implications of these new orders. NPR spoke with several members of the Ohio National Guard, who, under the condition of anonymity, described a mix of anxiety, disillusionment, and ethical conflict. “I really went to a dark place when they sent the troops to [Los Angeles], and then eventually [Washington, D.C.], and now, Chicago. This is just not what any of us signed up for, and it’s so out of the scope of normal operations,” said one Guard member, identified only as J.
Their concerns are echoed in an encrypted Signal group chat that sprang up among Ohio Guard members as deployments ramped up. The chat, according to NPR, has become a daily forum for sharing news, expressing doubts, and seeking solidarity. “It’s not even necessarily expressing opinions or anything. It’s just expressing questions about things that come out,” said another member, A. The group has grown to a dozen members, all grappling with the shifting role of the Guard and the lack of clear information about their missions.
Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine agreed to send about 150 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., as part of the broader deployment. Yet some Ohio guardsmen have refused these voluntary orders, citing vague directives and unresolved ethical dilemmas. “What exactly are we going to be doing? Are we going to have leave? And those answers aren’t very clear—but in the past, it’s always been very clear,” said A. The uncertainty has left many questioning their continued service. “The only reason I want to finish my current contract is just because I feel like there’s weight to what I do and say right now, and I just want to use that to do some good,” said J, who, like others, is considering leaving the Guard altogether.
These internal struggles are not isolated. According to About Face, a nonprofit made up of current service members and post-9/11 veterans, more than 100 active military members have reached out in recent weeks for support in processing doubts about the deployments. Brittany Ramos DeBarros, the group’s director and a combat veteran, explained, “In the military culture, it’s really easy to feel like if you have questions or dissent, you’re the only person who thinks that.” The organization has ramped up outreach, offering resources and counseling to those questioning their orders. “We take very seriously making sure that people do understand what they could be facing if they follow their conscience. But the thing we also help people think through is, what is the cost of not following your conscience? Because as Iraq and Afghanistan vets in particular, many of us are living with that cost every day.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration and Pentagon have stood firmly behind the deployments. Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson stated, “Our great National Guardsmen signed up to defend the nation and serve the American people. We are proud of the work they have accomplished this year, and we are confident in their collective ability to carry out any and all orders by President Trump, the Department of War, and state leaders.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the president’s actions as a “lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel,” and criticized Democratic leaders for what she called failures to stop violent attacks on law enforcement.
For the Guard members on the ground, however, the reality is more complicated. The deployments have led to a rise in anti-Guard sentiment in some communities, and members say their roles are increasingly at odds with the humanitarian missions they expected when they joined. “I have been on two humanitarian-esque missions with the guard, which were awesome, doing the things you see on the commercial, helping these communities,” J told NPR. “And then you want me to go pick up trash and dissuade homeless people in D.C. at gunpoint. Like, no dude. It’s so disheartening every time I see another city—and I just wonder, ‘who’s going to stand up to this?’”
Some are even questioning the legality of their orders, especially as the administration has floated the idea of using the Guard for immigration enforcement—a move that would run afoul of longstanding U.S. law. “There is no way I would participate in that,” said J. Others, like C, are wrestling with the emotional toll. “I swore an oath to the Constitution, not a person,” she said. “I just really, really implore my peers and everybody outside looking in, to just think about that. Really think about that, and think about what that means. And if there are questions, ask them. Keep talking.”
As legal battles continue—most recently with a federal judge in D.C. hearing arguments over whether the Guard should be removed from the city’s streets—the debate shows no sign of abating. For now, the National Guard remains on patrol, caught between the demands of executive power, the limits of state law, and the consciences of those who serve.
