US Judge Orders End to Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Washington, D.C.

A U.S. federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to end its deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., calling the move unlawful and a violation of the city’s autonomy.

Background of the Deployment
In August 2025, former President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., via executive order — invoking increased federal control over law enforcement in the nation’s capital.

This led to more than 2,300 National Guard personnel arriving in the city from various states, under the command of the U.S. Army Secretary.

The Court’s Ruling
On November 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a ruling that the deployment “exceeded the bounds” of lawful authority and unlawfully interfered with D.C.’s home rule powers.
Anadolu Ajansı

Judge Cobb emphasized that while the president is commander in chief, federal law constrains how and when the National Guard may be federalized — especially in Washington, D.C., where Congress maintains unique authority.

She also found that sending out-of-state Guard troops to conduct law enforcement-type activities in D.C. lacked legal basis.

Sovereignty and Local Governance
The judge’s decision strongly defended D.C.’s self-governance. She wrote that the city has suffered “irreparable harm” by the federal government’s intrusion into its law enforcement powers.

According to her interpretation, the Trump administration’s broad reading of presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution would “erase Congress’s role in governing the District.”
Anadolu Ajansı

Appeal Delay
Although she ordered the troop deployment to end, Judge Cobb paused the effect of her ruling for 21 days, setting the date of December 11, 2025, as the earliest for implementing the order.

This delay gives the administration time to appeal the decision.

Legal Challenge
The lawsuit was brought by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, arguing that the troop presence undermined the authority of the city’s elected government.

Schwalb and his office have framed the deployment as a threat to constitutional democracy, warning that continued military presence in civilian law enforcement could set a dangerous precedent.

Defense by the Trump Administration
In response, a White House spokesperson defended the deployment, stating that the president acted “well within his lawful authority” to protect federal property and assist with crime control.

The administration maintains that such action was necessary and justified under the declared “public safety emergency.”

Wider Legal Context
This ruling is not isolated. It comes amid other legal battles over Trump’s use of federal forces in U.S. cities.