Patrick G. Eddington
Based on a lot of the media coverage back in December 2025, you might be under the impression that President Trump’s attempts to mobilize National Guard (NG) troops for de facto political repression operations were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. Trump. But only one specific authority, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, has been eliminated as an NG call-up option for Trump, at least for now.
It’s true that NG troops have been withdrawn from cities in California, Oregon, and Illinois—but in the nation’s capital, at least 170 West Virginia NG personnel remain deployed under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f)(2), through which the federal government (i.e., American taxpayers) foots the bill for the deployment of the West Virginia NG personnel, who nominally remain under the command of Governor Patrick Morrisey (R‑WV) but who in reality are under the control of the Joint Task Force-DC.
Why are those West Virginia NG personnel still here? Great question in light of the fact that there’s no “crime emergency” in the District, no anti-Trump rioting, etc. Those out-of-area NG troops are still here because Trump is still fighting the District government in federal court to try to retain a legal option to deploy out-of-area NG personnel to the District at his discretion. The case, District of Columbia v. Trump, has been underway since September 4, 2025, when the District filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Trump’s NG deployments to DC. That case is currently on appeal in the DC Circuit, with the federal district court having issued a stay in proceedings on March 2, pending the appellate court’s decision.
It’s worth noting that it was originally Richard Nixon who asserted direct presidential authority over the DC NG via Executive Order 11485, in which Nixon cited other federal (32 U.S. Code § 110) and DC (Title 49) statutes as the basis for his command-and-control power over the DC NG. My research to date has unearthed no federal statute that truly gives any chief executive that kind of direct authority over the DC NG, but instead a general patchwork of broad federal and DC law that Trump inherited from his predecessors and has attempted to use in ways that are questionable under the law.
Part of DC’s challenge is premised on the notion that Trump is claiming sweeping domestic law enforcement authority from a chain of legal authority that is, at its foundation, an executive assertion rather than explicit congressional authorization…and not just over the DC NG, but over his ability to deploy out-of-area NG units to DC as well.
The current case has importance beyond the right of the DC government to police its territory without pretextual and unwelcome federal interference. Should Trump ultimately win this case and regain unfettered ability to deploy out-of-area NG units to DC, it could have major implications for free speech and demonstration-related activity in the District in the event of a major national political blow-up over the 2026 mid-term elections or other hot-button political issues.
In America’s past, when armed National Guard personnel have confronted demonstrators, the results have been tragic…which is why Congress should change federal law to bar presidential domestic deployment of National Guard troops absent the explicit and ongoing consent of any governor or the DC mayor.