On September 4, 2025, the city of Washington, D.C. took the extraordinary step of suing President Donald Trump and his administration over the deployment of more than 2,200 National Guard troops throughout the capital. The lawsuit, filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb in the U.S. District Court for D.C., accuses the president of violating both the Constitution and federal law by sending in troops—many from out of state—without the consent of local leaders.
According to CNN, Schwalb’s complaint argues that the deployment directly undermines the city’s autonomy, erodes trust between residents and law enforcement, and inflicts economic damage by discouraging tourism and hurting local businesses. The legal filing asserts, “No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation.” Schwalb’s office is seeking a federal court order to withdraw the National Guard members and prohibit similar deployments in the future.
The controversy erupted after President Trump, as part of his anti-crime agenda, ordered the National Guard into the capital on August 11, 2025. The deployment was intended, according to the White House, to protect federal assets and assist local law enforcement with a surge in violent crime. As of September 2, there were 2,290 National Guard troops assigned to the mission, including 1,340 from six Republican-led states, as reported by NBC News and CNN. Many of these troops have been deputized by the U.S. Marshals office, and their orders include patrolling neighborhoods, conducting searches, and making arrests—roles typically reserved for local police.
Federal law, notably the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s actions overstep these legal boundaries and violate the law that grants D.C. limited home rule. Schwalb stated, "Deploying the National Guard to engage in law enforcement is not only unnecessary and unwanted, but it is also dangerous and harmful to the District and its residents." He added, "It’s D.C. today but could be any other city tomorrow. We’ve filed this action to put an end to this illegal federal overreach."
Despite the lawsuit’s assertive tone, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has taken a more cautious approach. At a press event on September 4, Bowser declined to explicitly endorse the lawsuit, instead emphasizing her focus on guiding the city out of the emergency. “What’s fair to say is that my 100% focus is on exiting the emergency, and that’s where all of our energies are,” Bowser told reporters, according to CNN. While she has criticized the National Guard deployment for weeks, Bowser’s more conciliatory approach stands in contrast to Schwalb’s legal challenge, as she aims to avoid provoking the president and limit further federal interference in local affairs.
The White House, for its part, has firmly defended the legality and necessity of the deployment. In a statement to CNN, White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks.” Jackson further characterized the lawsuit as "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."
Meanwhile, the orders for the D.C. National Guard troops have been extended through November 30, with expectations of further extension through December to ensure continuity of benefits for guard members, according to CNN and The Associated Press. This means the military presence in the capital is set to continue for several more months, even as the city’s federalization—the emergency declaration that allowed for the takeover of the police department—will expire on September 10, 2025, unless Congress decides to extend it. At present, there appear to be no plans in Congress to prolong the emergency declaration, as reported by The Washington Post and Politico.
Critics of the deployment, including local officials and community leaders, argue that the presence of thousands of armed troops—many from outside jurisdictions—has frayed the relationship between residents and law enforcement. The lawsuit claims that the militarization of city streets is “unnecessary and costly,” with taxpayers footing an estimated $1 million a day, all while troops are sometimes seen engaging in non-law enforcement activities such as taking photos with tourists, picking up trash, and laying mulch.
Beyond the immediate legal and political clash, the lawsuit raises broader questions about the unique status of Washington, D.C. As a federal district, not a state, D.C. is subject to special constitutional provisions that allow the president greater authority over its National Guard and police force than would be possible in any of the 50 states. This has long been a source of friction for local leaders who advocate for greater self-governance and statehood. The complaint underscores the city’s “severe and irreparable sovereign injury” from the deployment, making clear that the legal challenge is as much about defending local autonomy as it is about the specifics of the National Guard mission.
The legal battle in D.C. comes on the heels of a related case in California, where a federal judge ruled earlier in the week that Trump’s military deployment in Los Angeles was illegal. That case, however, is “not directly comparable,” as The Washington Post notes, because the federal government has far more direct power over the District of Columbia than it does over any state. Nonetheless, the California ruling has emboldened D.C. officials and set the stage for a potentially significant judicial showdown over the limits of presidential power in the nation’s capital.
While some progressive groups have criticized Mayor Bowser’s recent executive order requiring the city to coordinate closely with federal law enforcement, Bowser has clarified that the move is intended to provide a pathway for D.C. to exit the federal emergency and regain control over its own affairs. “I want the message to be clear to the Congress: We have a framework to request or use federal resources in our city. We don’t need a presidential emergency,” Bowser said, emphasizing that protecting D.C.’s autonomy remains her “north star.”
Looking ahead, the outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications—not just for Washington, D.C., but for the balance of power between local and federal authorities across the country. With Trump pledging similar National Guard deployments in other cities, and Congress considering legislation that could further reshape D.C.’s criminal justice system and leadership, the struggle over the capital’s autonomy is far from over.
For now, the city waits as the courts weigh the arguments, the troops remain on the streets, and the debate over federal authority versus local control continues to play out in the heart of American democracy.
