Washington, DC, is taking legal action against President Donald Trump’s deployment of approximately 2,300 National Guard troops from seven states. Though the deployment began August 11, it has since created a near-daily military presence throughout the entire city. City Attorney General Brian Schwalb contends that this goes beyond Trump’s authority and infringes on the District’s autonomy, which is protected by the Home Rule Act.
Schwalb’s complaint, a hefty 52 pages, was filed in court. As he claims, such a deployment would undermine deep constitutional principles against use of military forces in local law enforcement. His answer is that the Pentagon has seized control of the forces. He further asserts that they’ve been deputized by the US Marshals Service to perform enforcement duties. This action, Schwalb argues, “runs roughshod over a fundamental tenet of American democracy – that the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement.”
He makes this claim in order to justify the continuing military presence. Schwalb points out that no residents or community leaders in the District asked for this deployment. He warns that Trump’s actions could damage trust between the community and law enforcement, exacerbate tensions, and negatively impact the city’s economy, particularly within the restaurant and hospitality sectors.
“The residents and leaders of the District of Columbia have not requested any of this.” – Brian Schwalb
Unfortunately, the federal deployment is scheduled to expire on September 10 unless Congress extends it. This raises concerns about the legality of Trump’s actions, especially following a federal judge’s ruling in California that deemed a similar deployment to Los Angeles illegal. Still, the fact that the Republican administration is still appealing that decision makes this case a lot more complicated still.
In his complaint, Schwalb described the increased military presence in DC as an “involuntary military occupation.” He points out that over 2200 National Guard troops are currently on the streets patrolling. They have militarized every aspect of their enforcement—they wear military fatigues, carry military rifles, and drive military armored vehicles. As Boots Riley pointed out, this reality is indicative of a much larger trend of how federal assets are turned against local communities.
Since then, Trump has announced similar deployments to Chicago and Baltimore. This change admittedly sets a troubling new precedent for federal intervening to address local disorderly conduct.
Rising tensions are a good indicator of this. Last week, a St. Louis grand jury refused to indict someone who allegedly threw a sandwich at a federal officer during a demonstration against the troop deployment. This incident is an example of the escalating public outcry against Trump’s attacks on civil liberties and community relations.