A Verdict With Shockwaves – Why a Federal Judge Is Halting Trump’s Deployment in the Capital

Washington is experiencing a conflict these weeks that it has not seen in this form before: a president who lets the National Guard patrol the streets of the capital for months – and a federal court that is now drawing a clear line. The decision by Judge Jia M. Cobb, Case No. 1:25-cv-03005-JMC – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is far more than a legal footnote. It is a turning point in a dispute over how far a president may go when bypassing local authorities and taking control of police and security forces. Cobb ordered on Thursday that the Trump administration must end its deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. The judge found that the president, with his directive, had violated the city’s authority. Despite its special status, Washington has its own rights to self-government – and Cobb saw those rights heavily infringed. The National Guard is not meant to permanently guard neighborhoods or take over routine policing tasks when the city government has not agreed to them. Because the scope of the case is enormous, Cobb suspended her decision for 21 days so the administration can appeal – until December 11, 2025, as explicitly stated in the court order.

The lawsuit was filed by Washington Attorney General Brian Schwalb. For him, the deployment was a months-long intrusion into the city’s authority. He demanded not only the end of the operation but also a clear ban on future deployments without the city’s consent. Several states sided with him – the dividing line, predictably, ran along party boundaries.

In her 61-page reasoning, Cobb made clear how she assesses the case: Yes, the president may protect federal buildings. But no, he may not send soldiers into a city to fight crime at will, and certainly not thousands of forces from other states. That is precisely what Trump had done. In August, he declared a “crime emergency”, and shortly thereafter more than 2,300 National Guard members from eight states and the District itself were patrolling – under the command of the Army Department. Hundreds of federal agents were added. For many residents, it felt like a permanent military presence that no longer had anything to do with an emergency deployment.

Particularly explosive is what Cobb specifically prohibited. According to Case No. 1:25-cv-03005-JMC, Document 89, the following measures are explicitly banned:

• the letter from the Army Secretary dated August 11, 2025 to the commander of the DC National Guard,
• DCNG Permanent Order 25-223,
• all directives, policies, or memoranda that would have extended the deployment until February 28, 2026,
• sämtliche Anordnungen, Richtlinien oder Memoranden, die die Verlängerung des Einsatzes bis 28. Februar 2026 ermöglicht hätten,
• any further memorandum between the DC National Guard and other states concerning “Operation Make DC Safe and Beautiful”.

The White House sees it differently. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that Trump had “broad authority” to deploy the Guard in Washington. The lawsuit, she said, was an attempt to sabotage successful measures against violent crime. But the administration deliberately ignores how unusual the structure really is. Washington is not a state, and the president therefore has more influence there than anywhere else. Trump used this special status to mobilize troops from Republican states and turn them into a quasi-permanent patrol force.

Cobb sees a dangerous development in this. She found that the establishment of a semi-permanent command structure went far beyond what is legally allowed. A time-limited emergency deployment had turned into an attempt to establish a permanent military presence. The decision is part of a series of rulings that have found Trump’s deployments in other cities unlawful – Chicago, Portland, Memphis. Only in Los Angeles does an existing ruling currently favor the administration. Particularly sensitive is the case in Chicago, which is currently before the Supreme Court. Its ruling could determine how far a president may go in the future.

Cobb sees a dangerous development in this. She found that the establishment of a semi-permanent command structure went far beyond what is legally allowed. A time-limited emergency deployment had turned into an attempt to establish a permanent military presence. The decision is part of a series of rulings that have found Trump’s deployments in other cities unlawful – Chicago, Portland, Memphis. Only in Los Angeles does an existing ruling currently favor the administration. Particularly sensitive is the case in Chicago, which is currently before the Supreme Court. Its ruling could determine how far a president may go in the future.

Washington remains a special case. The District of Columbia is neither a city nor a state, but even here the right to self-government is protected. Cobb emphasized that the Home Rule Act grants the city broad authority that cannot simply be ignored. Only months earlier, Schwalb’s office had successfully blocked Trump from taking control of the Metropolitan Police. The coming weeks will determine whether the deployment actually ends or whether the administration succeeds on appeal. But one thing is already clear: the dispute over the National Guard is no longer just a matter of security. It is about whether a president may use military tools to demonstrate political toughness – and whether a city like Washington can resist it.