Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The District of Columbia’s attorney general sued the Trump administration Thursday over the ongoing presence of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital, arguing the deployment amounts to a military occupation that violates the district’s right to self-rule.

President Donald Trump’s deployment of D.C. National Guard troops and units from states outside the district violates laws against using the military for domestic law enforcement and a 1973 federal law allowing the district to govern itself, D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb wrote in a complaint in federal court in the district.

“No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” the complaint says, adding that Trump’s “command and control of out-of-state National Guard units when they are in state militia status violates the Constitution and federal law.”

The administration’s actions, which Trump has characterized as an attempt to control crime in the city, “flout the Posse Comitatus Act,” a 19th-century law, and other sections of federal law that “enshrine the nation’s foundational prohibition on the participation of military forces in domestic law enforcement absent the most extreme exigencies, such as an invasion or rebellion,” the complaint said.

“Defendants have established a massive, seemingly indefinite law enforcement operation in the District subject to direct military command. The danger that such an operation poses to individual liberty and democratic rule is self-evident,” the complaint said.

Despite a Tuesday morning ruling from a federal judge in California that called Trump’s use of military personnel for law enforcement in Los Angeles illegal, the president has continued to explore further use of Guard units for what he said is crime prevention in other U.S. cities. 

The suit asks U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to block the administration from any further use of National Guard troops for law enforcement and to block states’ National Guard troops from operating in the district. 

White House spokespeople did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Out-of-state Guard deployments questioned

States with a military presence in the district cited in the suit are Louisiana, South Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Those states’ Republican governors all responded to requests from Trump to send Guard troops, according to the complaint.

But Trump did not federalize any of the state National Guard units patrolling the district, meaning they remain legally under the command of their governors and cannot enter another state or the district without a request from the governor or the mayor of Washington, D.C., according to the suit.

Late last month, Schwalb’s office sent letters to the leaders of states that had deployed troops to the district, asking for information “regarding the factual and legal basis for” their decision to send troops.

Only Tennessee responded, and offered only limited information, the complaint said.

While legally still under their governors’ control, the suit says the out-of-state troops are in practice under the control of Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Police-military separation tested by Trump

As president, Trump does control the D.C. National Guard. But he cannot use its members for domestic law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act, the complaint said.

D.C. and out-of-state National Guard troops have been doing just that, the complaint said. 

U.S. Marshals, a federal law enforcement agency, has deputized at least some troops in the district. The troops, who are armed with service weapons, have patrolled district streets, including in residential areas, the complaint said.

“These are law enforcement activities,” the suit said.

While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that Trump has broad authority to federalize state National Guard troops — even over a governor’s objection — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled this week that those troops still may not engage in law enforcement activity.

Trump, who has mused about sending troops to other cities including Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans, is testing the legal limits of the Guard’s ability to assist police forces, University of Houston Law Center Professor Christopher Mirasola said in an interview this week before the District of Columbia suit was filed. 

While a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy, the separation of military from law enforcement is governed more by norms than laws, Mirasola said, giving the administration leeway to at least try to stretch what has been considered acceptable.

“The administration is pushing the bounds of every existing legal theory that’s out there for domestic military deployment,” he said. “It’s absolutely corrosive of our democracy, because I think there’s a potential for a real shift in how we think about the military’s role in our domestic affairs.”

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles this summer violated a federal law against military members conducting domestic law enforcement, a federal judge in California ruled early Tuesday.

The ruling from Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer represents an obstacle to any further use of National Guard troops to assist local police in more cities. Following deployments to LA and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about federalizing other state National Guard troops and sending them to major cities like Chicago and Baltimore he says are overwhelmed with crime.

Breyer, whom Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed in 1997, said Trump could not use the National Guard for a wide array of police activities in California. His order goes into effect Sept. 12.

Breyer said the roughly 4,700 Guard members and Marines engaged in police activity in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which he said built on the constitutional framers’ wariness of a centralized military force conducting police work.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit instruction, federal troops executed the laws,” Breyer wrote in a 52-page opinion. “Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

National Guard expanded

The judge expressed concern about Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements they wanted to expand the role of National Guard troops for law enforcement.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” he wrote.

The issue itself dates much further back in U.S. history, forming part of the basis for the country’s break from the English monarchy, Breyer noted.

“Indeed, resentment of Britain’s use of military troops as a police force was manifested in the Declaration of Independence, where one of the American colonists’ grievances was that the King had ‘affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power,’” he wrote.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who sued to block Trump’s federalization of the state’s National Guard, said the ruling “sided with democracy and the Constitution” and echoed Breyer’s warning about Trump leading a national police force.

“No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people,” Newsom said. “Trump’s attempt to use federal troops as his personal police force is illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also cheered the decision.

“The White House tried to invade the second largest city in the country,” she wrote. “That’s illegal. Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break. We will not be divided and we will not be defeated.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Return to appeals court likely

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he won a victory early in the case.

After Breyer issued a temporary restraining order in June calling on Trump to return control of the state’s National Guard to Newsom, a 9th Circuit panel unanimously blocked it from going into effect, ruling that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed Trump to make the determination that the proper circumstances existed to federalize National Guard troops.

That appeals ruling dealt with Breyer’s finding that Trump likely violated the president’s legal authority to federalize National Guard troops.

The appeal did not consider potential Posse Comitatus Act violations, Breyer said Tuesday.