Washington, D.C., just got a judicial roadblock to President Trump’s bold plan to curb street crime with National Guard troops.
The Hill reported that a federal judge’s ruling on Thursday has stopped the deployment of over 2,000 National Guard members in the nation’s capital, marking a significant challenge to Trump’s strategy to restore order in Democratic strongholds.
Last month, Trump announced plans to take control of D.C.’s police operations and deploy the National Guard to tackle rampant street crime, a move that raised eyebrows among local leaders.
In September, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb fired back with a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that this overreach trampled on the city’s right to govern itself.
Fast forward to Thursday, when U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, dropped the hammer, ruling that the Pentagon’s actions likely overstepped federal authority and broke the law.
Here’s the breakdown: roughly 2,000 Guard troops, including D.C.’s own under Trump’s direct command and others from nine Republican-led states like South Carolina and Ohio, have been patrolling D.C. streets.
These out-of-state troops operate under Title 32 authority, which keeps them under governors’ control with federal funding, sidestepping the Posse Comitatus Act that bars federal military from civilian law enforcement.
Yet Judge Cobb wasn’t buying the administration’s argument that this setup, effectively placing troops under Trump’s mission directives, passes legal muster—calling it a stretch of statutory power.
The Trump administration insisted that executive powers grant the president control over local Guard units and even claimed D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser was on board with the crackdown, implying no harm done.
Judge Cobb shot that down, affirming it’s “well-established” that Schwalb can sue on the city’s behalf, rejecting the notion that D.C. suffered no injury.
Schwalb didn’t hold back, declaring on X that the ruling was a win for “DC, Home Rule and American democracy,” as if democracy hinges on blocking troops from protecting citizens.
Now, let’s unpack Schwalb’s victory lap—while it’s true the court sided with D.C.’s autonomy, one has to wonder if leaving streets vulnerable to crime is the democratic ideal we’re aiming for.
Judge Cobb herself noted, “The record in this case, including many of the amicus briefs filed, makes clear that there are strong views on both sides about whether these deployments represent good policy. But the Court is only tasked with deciding whether Defendants’ actions are lawful.”
Her words are a sobering reminder that this isn’t about what’s right for safety but what’s legal on paper—a distinction that might leave law-abiding D.C. residents feeling a bit exposed.
Cobb has paused her order until Dec. 11, giving the administration a window to appeal, while the Supreme Court mulls a similar Guard deployment in Chicago and a federal judge in Oregon already blocked troops in Portland.
With Guard numbers in D.C. at two-thirds the size of the local police force, their absence could shift the balance on the streets, especially when progressive policies often seem to prioritize optics over order.