DC sues Trump administration over National Guard deployment

Sep 4, 2025 — Washington, D.C.’s attorney general filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging that President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully deployed National Guard forces to the District beginning Aug. 11, 2025. The complaint says 2,290 guardspeople — including 1,340 from supporting states — have been assigned to the mission, some deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service and armed while carrying out patrols and other activities in the city.

Key takeaways

• DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration on Sep. 4, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
• The deployment began Aug. 11, 2025; 2,290 National Guard members are assigned, including 1,340 from other states.
• The suit alleges some guardspeople were deputized by U.S. Marshals and tasked with patrols, searches, or arrests.
• The city says the deployment breaches federal limits on military involvement in civilian law enforcement and harms DC’s autonomy and economy.
• DC Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an executive order to formalize coordination with federal agencies while seeking an off-ramp from the emergency posture.
• A federal judge in California recently found a similar military role in Los Angeles unlawful, creating a legal backdrop for DC’s claim.
• Officials estimate the federal presence is costing roughly $1 million per day in taxpayer funds.

Verified facts

The complaint, filed by Attorney General Brian Schwalb in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names federal officials and argues the deployment inflicts a “severe and irreparable sovereign injury” on the District. It asks the court to declare the actions unlawful and to bar further use of the National Guard and other military personnel for local law enforcement purposes.

The suit contends some guardspeople have been deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service and equipped to carry weapons while operating in neighborhoods. Federal law, including long-standing limits on the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, is central to the legal challenge.

Officials in the District say the federal presence has tangible local effects: reduced tourism, strain on businesses, and heightened tensions between residents and law enforcement. The complaint and public statements emphasize that D.C.’s status as a federal district gives the president unique authority over the D.C. National Guard, a structural factor the city argues does not justify bypassing local governance and civil-rights protections.

Context & impact

The lawsuit arrives amid a broader federal push to expand law enforcement operations in cities the administration identifies as high-crime areas. The administration cites a steep drop in violent crime in Washington after increasing federal deployments. Critics counter that military-style deployments are unnecessary, costly, and risk damaging civil liberties and local control.

Mayor Muriel Bowser signed an executive order intended to formalize coordination with federal agencies, a move she described as creating a pathway for the District to request federal assistance while seeking to protect local authority. Some progressives criticized the order as a concession, but Bowser said it could help the city negotiate a reduced federal footprint.

The DC lawsuit follows a recent ruling by a federal judge in California that found the federal government’s use of military personnel in law-enforcement roles around Los Angeles earlier this year violated federal law. That decision may influence how courts evaluate the D.C. complaint.

Official statements

“Using the National Guard to perform law-enforcement functions in the District is unnecessary, unwanted, and poses serious risks to residents and municipal sovereignty,”

Brian Schwalb, DC Attorney General

“We have set a framework to request or use federal resources without accepting a permanent presidential emergency,”

Muriel Bowser, Mayor of Washington, D.C.

Unconfirmed

• Specific instances and locations where guardspeople made arrests or conducted searches are described in the complaint but may not be independently verified in each case.
• Reports that National Guard orders will be formally extended through December are described by federal sources as expected but were not uniformly confirmed by the Department of Defense at filing time.

Bottom line

The suit seeks to clarify the legal boundaries between federal authority and local self-governance in the District of Columbia. A court decision in favor of D.C. could limit the administration’s ability to deploy federal troops for domestic policing and shape how similar deployments are handled in other cities. Expect litigation to proceed quickly given competing legal rulings and the administration’s stated plans for expanded enforcement operations.

Sources

• CNN
• Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (press releases)