A federal appeals court on Wednesday appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington over the objections of city leaders, now in its 14th month.
Even as the judges acknowledged legal distinctions that give the city less power than state governors to challenge the deployment, the three judges lobbed sharp questions at Eric D. McArthur, a government attorney, about whether President Trump could legally deploy Guard members from other states in the city and whether he had usurped power reserved for Congress in keeping the troops in place indefinitely.
Mr. Trump first sent the National Guard into Washington in August 2025, claiming without evidence that the city had failed to control a wave of violent crime.
Ahead of events celebrating the country’s 250th anniversary this summer, the deployment swelled to nearly 5,000 troops, with many units sent from other states led by a number of supportive Republican governors.
In July, the Pentagon announced that the deployment would continue for the entirety of Mr. Trump’s second term, and the Trump administration signed a nearly $300 million contract securing long-term housing for at least 2,000 troops. As of October, the number of those deployed was hovering around 3,000.
City leaders have objected to the presence of the troops, who have become a regular sight in local neighborhoods. They filed suit in September 2025 arguing that the administration was exceeding its authority with the deployment. A district court judge ruled last year that the deployment probably trampled the city’s rights to self governance, but an appeals court decided then to allow the Guard members to remain on the streets while the lawsuit proceeded.
Wednesday’s arguments were intended to help a new panel of appeals court judges consider a more long-lasting ruling, which is expected in the coming months.
The three judges on the panel, all appointed by Democrats, homed in on whether the president could bring troops from distant states to patrol the city without any emergency approaching an insurrection or a foreign invasion. And they noted that the city never requested federal assistance and had opposed a previous effort by Mr. Trump to seize control over the city’s police force.
“Do you have a view about whether one state Guard can be deployed into another state without the receiving state’s consent, as a constitutional matter?” Judge Bradley N. Garcia asked.
“I think likely not,” Mr. McArthur said.
“And so the analogy, I think D.C. might say, is: It sure ought to follow that a state can’t send its Guard into the District of Columbia without Congress’s consent,” replied Judge Garcia, an appointee of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Judge Garcia suggested that it was Congress, not the president, who would have such authority in the city.
Judge Garcia was joined on the panel by Judge Judith W. Rogers, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Judge Rogers also questioned why Mr. Trump could not simply allow Congress to increase funding for law enforcement in Washington if he had concerns about crime in the city. After a spike in homicides during the pandemic, the mayor’s office had requested $30 million to hire more police officers.
Janeese Lewis George, the Democratic nominee for mayor, has made opposing the presence of the Guard a centerpiece of her campaign, vowing to work with the attorney general’s office to end the deployment.
During the surge over the summer, local members of the D.C. National Guard made up as little as 12 percent of the force stationed in the city, according to data compiled by The New York Times.
At a news conference after the hearing, Brian Schwalb, the city’s attorney general, said the presence of the Guard had “spread fear and apprehension” among residents.
“We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to having military in the streets of the nation’s capital — at any time,” he said.
In court, Mr. McArthur argued that troops had played a quiet deterrence role in the city and had freed up the police to do more law enforcement work.
“The Guard is largely providing a presence in high-traffic areas, like in national parks, Metro stations,” he said. “And what they do if they witness a crime, they call 911, they call the police.”
The judges also had challenging questions for Mitchell P. Reich, an attorney representing the District.
To get the judges to block the deployment, Mr. Reich would need to show that the city has been harmed by the deployment. He argued that the city had expended significant resources integrating National Guard troops with the local police.
But several members of the panel questioned how it was any different or more challenging for D.C. police officers to work alongside the National Guard than it was to cooperate with the Park Police or federal agents from any number of other law enforcement agencies that also work in Washington.
“That’s where it’s hard to see that mere cost of communicating and coordinating is irreparable harm,” Judge Rogers said. “That’s life in D.C.”
John Ismay contributed reporting.
The post Appeals Court Questions Trump’s National Guard Deployment in D.C. appeared first on New York Times.
