A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., violates federal law and illegally infringes on the District’s authority to govern itself.​​

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction sought by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, finding that the Trump administration “exceeded the bounds of their authority” in deploying more than 2,000 National Guard members to the nation’s capital for crime deterrence purposes.

The decision stayed the order for 21 days until December 11, 2025, to allow the administration time to appeal.

In August 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum ordering the mobilization of the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) and National Guard units from multiple states to “address the epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital.” Within a month, over 2,300 National Guard members from eight states—including South Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and South Dakota—were deployed to Washington under the direction of the Secretary of the Army.​​

Guard units have patrolled Metro stations, the National Mall, and neighborhoods throughout the District as part of what officials described as “presence patrols” and “high visibility missions” intended to deter crime. The deployment was initially set to continue through November 30, 2025, but has since been extended through February 28, 2026. An executive order issued in August also directed the creation of a specialized D.C. National Guard unit “dedicated to ensuring public safety and order in the Nation’s capital,” suggesting the deployment could become permanent.

Judge Cobb concluded that the District of Columbia is “likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims that the deployment violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on two grounds.​

First, the court found that the Department of Defense defendants lacked authority under Title 49 of the D.C. Code to deploy the DCNG for “non-military, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city’s civil authorities.” While the president serves as commander-in-chief of the D.C. National Guard, Judge Cobb ruled this designation alone does not confer unlimited deployment authority.​​

The judge analyzed D.C. Code Section 49-102, which allows the Commanding General to order Guard units for “drills, inspections, parades, escort, or other duties.” Applying the legal principle of ejusdem generis, Cobb determined that “other duties” refers only to military exercises similar to those specifically listed, not general law enforcement activities. The court rejected the administration’s argument that this provision encompasses crime deterrence operations.​

Second, Judge Cobb ruled that the administration lacked statutory authority under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) to request assistance from out-of-state National Guard units. The court found that this provision of Title 32 cannot support the deployment because there is no state-law basis for those Guard units to operate in D.C., and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) was never invoked.​​

Under the EMAC, states can deploy National Guard units to assist each other only through mutual agreement and only after the receiving governor declares an emergency. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser never made such a declaration or requested the assistance.

The court found that the District suffers “irreparable harm” from the unlawful deployment because it usurps the District’s sovereign powers of self-governance granted under the Home Rule Act of 1973.

The judge emphasized that the deployment—comprising over 2,000 troops, roughly two-thirds the size of the Metropolitan Police Department—is a major intrusion into local governance. She noted that the District has a statutory duty under D.C. law to “preserve the public peace,” “prevent crime and arrest offenders,” and “enforce and obey all laws”—responsibilities that are being undermined by the federal government’s unilateral actions.​​

Additionally, Judge Cobb found that the District suffers a distinct constitutional injury from the presence of out-of-state National Guard units. The Constitution placed the District exclusively under Congress’s authority “to prevent individual states from exerting any influence over the nation’s capital,” the judge wrote. The deployment of state Guard forces violates this constitutional design by forcing D.C. to share power with state governors commanding those units.

Despite the ruling, National Guard troops remain stationed in Washington and are expected to continue operations during the 21-day stay period. The Trump administration has three weeks to appeal Judge Cobb’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.