By Eniola Amadu
Washington, DC, has filed a lawsuit against the Donald Trump administration, accusing the president of violating the Constitution and federal law by deploying thousands of National Guard troops to patrol the capital without the consent of local leaders.
The case, lodged on Thursday by the city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, argues that the deployment — which includes troops from several Republican-led states — undermines the city’s sovereignty, erodes public trust in law enforcement, and damages the local economy by discouraging tourism and business.
In a strongly worded statement, Schwalb described the deployment as unnecessary and a dangerous overreach.
READ ALSO: Judge rules Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard $2.2bn research funding
“It’s DC today, but it could be any other city tomorrow. We’ve filed this action to put an end to this illegal federal overreach,” he declared.
Trump ordered the deployment on 11 August as part of his wider anti-crime agenda for the capital. Alongside the troops, his administration also dispatched federal law enforcement officers and even attempted to assume direct control of the city’s police department.
As of Tuesday morning, officials confirmed that 2,290 National Guard members were on duty in DC, including 1,340 drawn from supporting states. Many had been authorised to carry weapons, fuelling concern among residents and city leaders.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for DC, contends that the city has suffered “a severe and irreparable sovereign injury” as a result of the deployment. It calls for injunctive relief to halt the mission.
The Trump administration has defended the operation, pointing to a reported fall in violent crime since federal agents and troops arrived last month.
Critics, including DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, say the deployment is excessive and costly — roughly $1 million per day — and often symbolic, with troops spotted taking photos with tourists or performing menial tasks.
While under pressure, Bowser signed an executive order to coordinate more closely with federal law enforcement, insisting this was a pathway for Congress and the White House to wind down the emergency.
“We don’t need a presidential emergency,” she stressed.
READ ALSO: Lagarde: Trump’s Fed interference ‘serious danger’ to global economy
This is not the first legal setback for Trump’s use of the National Guard. Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that his administration had acted illegally by sending troops into Los Angeles against the objections of California’s governor.
Schwalb, who has already clashed with Trump officials over efforts to seize control of DC’s police department, warned that Congress is now considering legislation that could strip him of his elected post and replace him with a presidential appointee. Despite this, he confirmed his intention to seek re-election.
