Focus on the BIG picture.
Friday, Dec 05, 2025
Outside the box.
Appeals Court Pauses Order to Remove National Guard — Trump Administration Can Keep Troops in Washington, D.C. for Now
Judges grant administrative stay, allowing deployment to continue while the legal challenge proceeds
A federal appeals court has granted the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit an administrative stay on a lower-court order that had required withdrawal of United States National Guard troops from Washington, D.C., enabling the forces to remain in the capital at least temporarily.
The pause does not resolve the underlying legal question but allows the deployment to continue while the appeal unfolds.
The deployment originally began in August under an executive order by Donald Trump, who declared a crime emergency in D.C. and federalised the capital’s policing apparatus.
The force — which by some counts exceeded 2,300 soldiers drawn from the District and multiple states — was tasked with supporting law enforcement, patrolling Metro stations and streets, and aiding security operations after a recent surge in violence.
The administration argued the Guard’s presence was vital to safeguarding federal property and public safety.
On November 20, a federal district judge ruled that the deployment violated federal law and ordered the troops withdrawn by December 11. But after an emergency appeal, the appellate court’s one-page order on December 4 put that timeline on hold.
The court explicitly stated the stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the case.
Legal advocates for the city assert the deployment interferes with local governance and violates statutes that restrict the use of military personnel for domestic policing duties.
They argue the presence of out-of-state National Guard units undermines local authority and risks misuse of military power in civic law enforcement.
The administration counters that it is exercising constitutionally vested control over D.C. — which is not a state — and that the deployment is within the president’s remit to protect federal interests.
With the stay in effect, Guard troops will remain on patrol in the capital while the legal dispute moves through court.
The ruling is unlikely to be the final word, but for now it preserves the status quo amid continuing national debate over the boundaries between civilian policing and military deployment in U.S. cities.
The pause does not resolve the underlying legal question but allows the deployment to continue while the appeal unfolds.
The deployment originally began in August under an executive order by Donald Trump, who declared a crime emergency in D.C. and federalised the capital’s policing apparatus.
The force — which by some counts exceeded 2,300 soldiers drawn from the District and multiple states — was tasked with supporting law enforcement, patrolling Metro stations and streets, and aiding security operations after a recent surge in violence.
The administration argued the Guard’s presence was vital to safeguarding federal property and public safety.
On November 20, a federal district judge ruled that the deployment violated federal law and ordered the troops withdrawn by December 11. But after an emergency appeal, the appellate court’s one-page order on December 4 put that timeline on hold.
The court explicitly stated the stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the case.
Legal advocates for the city assert the deployment interferes with local governance and violates statutes that restrict the use of military personnel for domestic policing duties.
They argue the presence of out-of-state National Guard units undermines local authority and risks misuse of military power in civic law enforcement.
The administration counters that it is exercising constitutionally vested control over D.C. — which is not a state — and that the deployment is within the president’s remit to protect federal interests.
With the stay in effect, Guard troops will remain on patrol in the capital while the legal dispute moves through court.
The ruling is unlikely to be the final word, but for now it preserves the status quo amid continuing national debate over the boundaries between civilian policing and military deployment in U.S. cities.
