The District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Thursday, asking a federal court to stop the deployment of more than 1,000 National Guard troops to Washington and challenging plans to send additional forces to other cities in the name of reducing violent crime.
Brian Schwalb, the district’s elected attorney general, said in the lawsuit that the deployment amounts to an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement and that "no American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation." The complaint asks a federal court to intervene to halt the current deployment.
The White House defended the operation, saying the administration is acting within presidential authority to protect federal assets and assist local law enforcement. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, called the lawsuit "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."
A National Guard official said orders for D.C. Guard members have been extended through December. The official cautioned that the extension does not necessarily mean every troop will remain for the full period, but said the extension indicates their role is likely to continue for some time.
The lawsuit frames the presence of federal troops in the nation's capital as a fundamental threat to the District's autonomy and civil liberties. It objects to the involuntary nature of the deployment and contends that using military personnel for domestic policing functions exceeds lawful limits on federal power.
The federal government has repeatedly maintained that protecting federal property and personnel is a core presidential responsibility, and that National Guard forces can be used in a supporting role to local authorities. Administration officials say such deployments are aimed at curbing violent crime and safeguarding public spaces, not supplanting local law enforcement.
Schwalb filed the suit as President Donald Trump has signaled intentions to expand troop deployments beyond Washington, citing public safety and crime reduction as reasons for sending uniformed forces into American cities. The suit underscores a growing legal and political dispute over the proper scope of military involvement in domestic affairs and the balance between federal authority and local governance.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates have long debated the limits on using military forces in civilian settings; the lawsuit adds a direct challenge from an elected local official to the administration’s current actions. The case is expected to prompt court scrutiny of the statutory and constitutional bases the administration cites for the deployments.
The District's legal action follows months of national attention to law enforcement responses to unrest and protests, with heightened focus on how and when federal resources are deployed. The complaint filed Thursday is likely to move quickly through the courts because the extended orders and potential further deployments raise immediate questions about the rights of D.C. residents and the authority of local officials to control security within the District.
The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately provide court filings or detailed legal briefs in response to the suit on Thursday. The case could set a test for how far the federal government can go in using military or quasi-military forces in U.S. cities and the role courts will play in policing those limits.