A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. was illegal, delivering a significant rebuke to the administration and raising important questions about executive authority. The decision comes after a lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia Attorney General, who argued that the deployment violated both federal law and the city’s limited self-governance.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb found that the deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard personnel exceeded the president’s legal authority. According to the ruling, Trump authorized the Guard to perform non-military, law-enforcement tasks without a request from D.C. officials, a clear overstep under federal statutes. Judge Cobb also concluded that the Pentagon lacked statutory power to deploy out-of-state Guard units into the nation’s capital for domestic policing.
The lawsuit cited violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of federal military forces for civilian law enforcement, and the Home Rule Act, which grants the District of Columbia authority over its local governance. Judge Cobb emphasized that although the president serves as commander in chief, that role does not grant unlimited power to deploy troops for domestic policing without legal justification or local consent.
The ruling ordered the end of the deployment but included a 21-day stay, allowing the Trump administration to appeal the decision. This pause means troops may remain temporarily while the legal battle continues, keeping the matter in the courts for the foreseeable future.
The D.C. Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, praised the decision as a reaffirmation of local authority and a necessary safeguard against overreach. He warned that allowing unchecked presidential use of the National Guard could create a dangerous precedent for future domestic deployments. Several states filed supporting briefs, highlighting the broader concern over executive power and state sovereignty.
In contrast, a White House spokesperson defended the deployment, arguing that it was necessary to protect federal property and personnel in the capital. Officials maintained that the Guard’s presence was lawful under the president’s constitutional authority, framing the lawsuit as an overreach by local authorities.
Legal experts note that this ruling has far-reaching implications. It underscores the limits of executive power in domestic military deployments and affirms that federal law and local governance frameworks must be respected, even by a sitting or president. The case could also influence ongoing debates about the proper role of the National Guard in cities and the balance between federal authority and civil liberties.
The ruling is part of a broader pattern of scrutiny regarding Trump-era use of military resources in U.S. cities. Similar challenges have emerged in other jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, where judges have questioned the legality of employing National Guard units for non-military tasks.
As the appeal process moves forward, the final outcome will likely shape how future presidents deploy troops within U.S. borders and clarify the limits of executive authority over the National Guard. The court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder that even the commander in chief must operate within legal boundaries when it comes to domestic security operations.
Watch video below :
