A federal appeals court grilled the government today over Trump's National Guard occupation of D.C. streets

What's actually happening on D.C. streets

Walk through Columbia Heights on a Wednesday morning and you might pass a soldier in combat fatigues before you pass a mail carrier. That has been the reality in Washington since August 2025, when President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to the city under what his administration described as a crime-fighting mission. Trump deployed the National Guard in August 2025, and the force grew to about 5,000 troops at its peak over the summer, with members patrolling city streets and neighborhoods, supporting arrest operations, and participating in cleanup efforts.

The deployment, expected to end in January 2029, has continued as the legal challenge moves through the courts. On Wednesday morning, that legal fight moved to its highest-stakes courtroom yet.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments Wednesday in D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb's lawsuit to force an end to the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops in the District. It was, as the D.C. Office of the Attorney General noted, the first appellate hearing since a federal district court already ruled the deployment illegal.

Dozens of protesters stood outside the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, holding signs reading "Guards Out" and "Free DC" as the three-judge panel inside put both sides through a demanding morning of questioning.

What the judges asked

The hearing began with the three-judge panel collectively questioning the government's attorney, Eric McArthur. The opening volleys came fast.

Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard asked how the government's argument about an administration's authorities was "not federalization and therefore running up against" the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 U.S. law forbidding the use of the federal military for domestic law enforcement unless authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

That is the core legal question here. At the heart of the case, brought by D.C.'s attorney general, is whether the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard to the city, which, as a federal district, has limited autonomy over its own affairs. The U.S. Constitution gives federal lawmakers authority over the District of Columbia, while the Home Rule Act of 1973 lets residents elect a mayor, a council, and neighborhood commissioners.

The three judges on the panel were nominated by Democratic presidents: Pillard by Barack Obama, Bradley Garcia by Joe Biden, and Judith Rogers by Bill Clinton.

The panel is not coming to this cold. Last December, the three-judge panel that paused the lower court's ruling said Trump might prevail in his argument that the president "possesses a unique power" to mobilize the guard in Washington. That December stay kept the troops on the streets despite U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb's November 2025 ruling that the deployment was unlawful. Judge Cobb had ruled that the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops to the District was illegal and granted the Office of the Attorney General's request for a preliminary injunction, but stayed the order for 21 days to allow the defendants an opportunity to appeal.

The government did appeal, the stay was extended, and the troops stayed put. Wednesday's oral argument was the first time the full merits were aired before the appeals panel.

What the city says, in Schwalb's own words

Attorney General Schwalb spoke outside the courthouse after arguments concluded. "We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to having military in the streets of the nation's capital at any time," Schwalb said.

In a formal statement released by his office, Schwalb was more expansive. "It violates the law and the principles on which this country was founded to have the U.S. military policing the streets of any American community, including the District of Columbia," he said. He added: "For over a year, thousands of armed soldiers who are not from here and have limited law enforcement training have occupied our streets, spreading fear and confusion by patrolling near our schools, deploying next to ballot boxes, and marching through our neighborhoods."

That line about ballot boxes is not rhetorical. A video of soldiers standing in front of an early-voting site surfaced in mid-October, concerning residents about National Guard proximity to the polls. The November 3 general election, which includes a mayoral race and council seats, is less than three weeks away.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal government is illegally deploying the D.C. National Guard for local law enforcement, illegally authorizing National Guard troops from other states to police the District without the District's consent, and illegally asserting federal command and control over National Guard troops that are in state militia status.

What the Trump administration says

The Trump administration says the deployment has contributed to a decrease in crime in the city, where crime was already on the decline before the National Guard arrived. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in an earlier statement cited by CBS News, said Trump was "well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington" and that the lawsuit is an attempt to "undermine" the president's operation.

The administration's legal theory rests on D.C.'s unusual constitutional status. The case is about whether the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard to the city, which, as a federal district, has limited autonomy over its own affairs. The U.S. Constitution gives federal lawmakers authority over the District of Columbia, while the Home Rule Act of 1973 lets residents elect a mayor, a council, and neighborhood commissioners.

The December 2025 panel signaled sympathy for that view. It said Trump might prevail in his argument that the president "possesses a unique power" to mobilize the guard in Washington. The administration's attorney, McArthur, was defending that position Wednesday.

Why this moment is different

Wednesday's hearing was not a procedural step. It was the main event at the appellate level. It was the first hearing in the federal government's appeal after the district court ruled that the deployment violates federal law.

The case has grown beyond D.C.'s borders. Trump's deployment in Washington is the most sustained long-running operation in what has become a pattern of military deployments to help with policing in Democratic-led cities around the country. Several other smaller deployments are tied up in legal battles, including Trump's deployment to Chicago, which is at the Supreme Court awaiting an emergency decision.

Officials and activists in the overwhelmingly Democratic city say the deployment is a waste of taxpayer money and has normalized the militarization of a major American city. That argument has gained particular force as the November 3 election approaches, with residents reporting unease at the sight of armed troops near early-voting locations.

The D.C. Circuit panel did not rule from the bench Wednesday. A written decision could come in days or weeks. The judges found earlier that the District "has not identified any ongoing injury to its statutory interests," language that suggested skepticism of some of Schwalb's standing arguments. Whether that carries into a ruling on the merits is now the central uncertainty.

The government ethics case, briefly

Separately, a smaller but pointed accountability story broke today. A former D.C. Public Schools lawyer who worked a second job in Maryland during her full-time employment has lost her city government job and will pay a $20,000 fine for violating ethics rules. Lynette Collins taught in-person psychology classes at Montgomery College during daytime hours when she was supposedly working at the school system's central office in downtown Washington.

It was unclear whether she was showing up for her six-figure DCPS job as senior deputy general counsel for labor and employment, where she acted as a government ethics expert representing the system in workplace disputes. The irony of an ethics expert violating ethics rules was not lost on observers. The D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability found that she misreported her outside income as telework and recorded regular work hours on government time-and-attendance sheets during her teaching hours from 2023 to this year. Collins agreed that her conduct violated the ethics rules and agreed to pay the $20,000 fine through the transfer of unused annual leave.

What D.C. Residents Should Watch

• The D.C. Circuit's written ruling. The three-judge panel did not decide from the bench Wednesday. Watch for a written order, which could come any time before the November 3 election. A ruling in Schwalb's favor could trigger an immediate showdown with the Trump administration over compliance. A ruling for the government would almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is already considering a parallel dispute over Chicago.
• Troops near polling places. The November 3 general election is 20 days away. Video of National Guard members outside an early-voting site surfaced this month. Watch whether the city or federal government issues any formal guidance on troop positioning relative to ballot locations before Election Day.
• The mayoral race and this issue. Janeese Lewis George, the Democratic nominee for mayor, has not been shy about her opposition to the deployment. How she uses or avoids this appellate moment in the final stretch of the campaign is worth tracking.
• The DCPS ethics case fallout. The Board of Ethics and Government Accountability has now investigated a growing number of city workers for unreported second jobs under the Bowser administration. Watch whether the Collins case prompts any agency-wide audit of time-and-attendance compliance at DCPS or other agencies before the fiscal year closes.

Sources: D.C. Office of the Attorney General; The Washington Post; Associated Press via U.S. News; The DC Line; PoPville; NBC4 Washington; The Washington Times