On October 24, 2025, the legal and political battle over President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities reached a fever pitch, with federal judges in both Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, hearing urgent challenges to the controversial orders. At the heart of these disputes lies a fundamental question: How far can the president go in using military force for domestic law enforcement, especially when local leaders and residents push back?
In Washington, D.C., the drama unfolded in U.S. District Court, where attorneys for the District and the Trump administration squared off for more than two and a half hours. The case, presided over by Judge Jia Cobb, centers on the continued presence of over 2,000 National Guard members in the nation’s capital—troops that have been patrolling D.C. since Trump’s executive order in August 2025 declared a crime emergency. That order triggered the deployment of more than 2,300 Guard members from eight states and the District itself, all under the command of the Army secretary, according to WTOP and Reuters.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who sued the Trump administration in September, is seeking an injunction to send the Guard members home. Schwalb’s legal team argues that the president overstepped his bounds, particularly by deploying troops from other states without the District’s consent. Attorney Mitchell Reich, representing D.C., insisted that, “another state’s troops cannot be sent to D.C. to police its citizens without consent.” He cited the Home Rule Act of 1973, which grants D.C. some autonomy, and contended that the ongoing military presence is not only unnecessary but actively harmful—economically damaging tourism, straining local law enforcement resources, and undermining the city’s reputation.
“Members of D.C. police are wasting resources by having to train Guard members to police residents they shouldn’t be policing,” Reich argued in court. He warned that the diversion of resources to support the Guard’s duties “is threatening public safety.” Schwalb doubled down after the hearing, telling reporters, “The military has no business doing civilian policing of Americans on American soil. That’s the key issue in this case, an issue that we have been confident on the law since we filed the lawsuit. … It’s time for us to have the National Guardsmen allowed to go home to their homes.”
The Trump administration, however, maintains that the president holds broad authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton told the court that the president is the commander in chief of the D.C. Guard and that the mayor has no veto power over such deployments. Hamilton emphasized that Guard members are only supporting police operations—not engaging in arrests or searches. He dismissed the lawsuit as a “political stunt,” particularly in light of a recent executive order by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser establishing a center to coordinate federal law enforcement in the city.
Yet, Judge Cobb pressed the Justice Department on the limits of presidential power. The administration responded by underscoring Congress’s grant of authority to the president over the federal district, noting that D.C. is not a state and thus lacks full sovereignty. Court documents indicate that Guard troops have been told to prepare for a “long-term persistent presence,” potentially through the summer of 2026, in conjunction with the upcoming “America 250” celebration. Hamilton confirmed that emails were sent suggesting a possible extension of the deployment beyond November 30, though no final end date has been set.
Outside the courthouse, the controversy spilled into the streets. The Free D.C. organization staged a rally demanding the end of what they called “the occupation” of the city by National Guard troops. Protesters marched, sang, and blocked traffic, brandishing signs urging the Guard to leave. Slobodan Milic, a D.C. resident, voiced the unease many locals feel: “They don’t want to be here. It’s not good for their reputation. It’s not good for the spirit of the armed forces to be viewed as politicized and instrumentalized by the government.”
The legal wrangling over troop deployments isn’t confined to the nation’s capital. On the same day, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland, Oregon, heard arguments over Trump’s attempts to send National Guard troops to that city as well. According to Reuters, the Justice Department pressed Judge Immergut to lift her October 5 order blocking the deployment of troops from any state to Portland, following an earlier appellate court decision suggesting the president likely has the authority to do so. However, Immergut’s order remains in effect, and no troops have been deployed to Portland yet. A trial on the merits of the deployment is scheduled for the following week.
State and local officials in Oregon, like their counterparts in D.C., argue that Trump’s actions violate federal laws and the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. Oregon’s attorney, Scott Kennedy, urged the court to maintain the status quo until a final ruling is reached, arguing, “There is at least good reason to pause and await finality.” The administration, meanwhile, insists that the president’s authority—especially in cases of protecting federal functions and suppressing unrest—is clear and supported by recent appellate rulings.
Trump’s strategy of deploying National Guard troops to cities led by Democratic officials has ignited fierce debate across the country. The administration claims these measures are necessary to protect immigration enforcement, suppress protests, and combat crime, despite the objections of local leaders who say the deployments are based on exaggerated claims of unrest. In D.C., for example, city police reported that crime rates were actually falling before the deployment, a point raised by local officials in court.
The D.C. case also hinges on the interpretation of the Home Rule Act, which, while granting residents the right to elect their mayor and city council, leaves significant law enforcement authority in the president’s hands due to the city’s unique status as a federal district. This legal gray area has left many residents and officials feeling powerless as the dispute drags on in court.
As of October 24, neither Judge Cobb in Washington nor Judge Immergut in Portland had issued final rulings, leaving the status quo in place: National Guard troops remain in D.C., while Portland remains off-limits to federal deployment for now. The stakes are high, with both sides warning of dire consequences—either for public safety or for democratic governance—depending on how the courts ultimately decide.
For many in the affected cities, the sight of armed troops on the streets is not just a legal or political matter, but a deeply personal one, touching on fears about civil liberties, local autonomy, and the role of the military in American life. The coming weeks will reveal whether the courts side with local self-determination or presidential authority, but for now, the debate continues to play out in both the courtroom and the court of public opinion.
