"Deploying the National Guard for law enforcement is not only unnecessary and unwelcome, but also dangerous and harmful to the District and its residents," Brian Schwalb, attorney general of Washington, D.C., said on 4/9 when announcing the federal lawsuit.

Schwalb asserted that military personnel, especially those from out of state, should not be patrolling city streets because they are not accountable to residents and are not trained in local law enforcement. "Today it's Washington, D.C., but tomorrow it could be other cities. We are filing this lawsuit to end this unlawful federal overreach," he emphasized.

The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense as defendants.

Police officers alongside National Guard units in Washington, D.C., on 30/8. Photo: AFP

Police officers alongside National Guard units in Washington, D.C., on 30/8. Photo: AFP

According to the attorney general's office, deploying the National Guard in the city constitutes "military occupation that exceeds the president's authority" and risks harming public safety and the local economy.

On 11/8, President Trump declared a public safety emergency in Washington, D.C., invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to deploy federal forces and nearly 2,300 National Guard troops to the city. He described Washington, D.C. as an "extremely dirty and crime-ridden city."

The lawsuit comes two days after a federal judge in California ruled that Trump violated the law by using the military to suppress protests in Los Angeles.

Washington, D.C. is governed by the District of Columbia government under the oversight of the U.S. Congress.

Federal law also allows Trump to control the Washington, D.C. police force for 30 days.

The White House and the Pentagon have not yet commented on the lawsuit.

Huyen Le (AFP, Reuters)