A federal appeals court has stepped into a heated clash over President Trump’s bold move to station National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., raising sharp questions about federal power and local control.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday temporarily lifted a lower court’s order blocking the deployment, granting the Trump administration’s request to pause the ruling while they evaluate a longer halt, The Hill reported.
This decision follows a violent attack on two National Guard members in the capital, an incident that left one dead and another wounded, intensifying the debate over the troops’ role. The tragedy pushed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to call in 500 additional Guard members to bolster security.
Last week’s brutal assault on U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, both from the West Virginia National Guard, underscored the dangers on D.C. streets. Beckstrom, just 20, succumbed to her injuries, while Wolfe, 24, remains hospitalized but shows signs of recovery, per West Virginia’s governor.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who arrived post-Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, faces charges of first-degree murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. He pleaded not guilty on Tuesday, with a preliminary hearing set for Jan. 14.
The attack fueled Trump’s resolve to maintain a heavy Guard presence, now totaling over 2,000 troops, drawn from D.C.’s reserves and nine Republican-led states. Federal funding supports these out-of-state units, though governors retain command, a detail that muddies the legal waters.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb had ruled that the Pentagon’s use of D.C. National Guard for “non-military, crime-deterrence missions” and pulling in out-of-state troops likely overstepped federal law. Her order, paused until Dec. 11 to allow an appeal, aimed to curb what she saw as executive overreach.
The Trump administration fired back, arguing before the appeals panel—two Trump appointees and one Obama pick—that Cobb’s decision meddled in presidential and congressional turf. They claimed, “in the name of vindicating local interests, it threatens to derail a remarkably successful mission that, with the participation and collaboration of D.C. authorities, including the D.C. Mayor, has reduced crime and improved life in our Nation’s capital.”
That rosy picture of success gets a reality check when you consider the bloodshed that prompted more boots on the ground in the first place. If crime’s down, why are soldiers still taking bullets on patrol in a city that’s supposed to govern itself?
D.C.’s attorney general, who sued in September over the deployment, argues the administration can’t justify this sweeping use of military muscle for law enforcement. The city’s lawyers pressed hard, stating, “Pressed below to articulate any limit on that power, Defendants identified none.”
That’s a chilling point—if there’s no boundary to when or where a president can roll out troops on home soil, what stops this from becoming a playbook for control over any city? D.C. isn’t just fighting for its streets; it’s battling a precedent that could reshape local autonomy nationwide.
Trump’s broader crackdown, including plans announced a month before the suit to take over D.C.’s police alongside Guard deployments, shows a clear intent to wrestle crime into submission. Yet, the cost in blood and legal friction begs the question whether this iron grip sacrifices more liberty than it secures.
The appeals court’s temporary lift of Cobb’s order keeps the Guard in place for now, but the deeper fight over federal versus local power looms large. As the panel mulls a longer pause, the nation watches a capital city turned testing ground for how far executive reach can stretch.
Progressives may cry foul over militarization, yet the hard truth of a soldier’s death and another’s struggle in a hospital bed demands we ask if D.C.’s streets were ever safe enough to leave unguarded. Still, handing a president unchecked authority to deploy troops for civilian policing feels like a Pandora’s box we might regret opening.
This case isn’t just about Washington—it’s a signal of how much ground we’re willing to cede when safety and control collide. With a suspect in custody and a hearing ahead, the human toll and legal stakes will keep this story burning hot until the courts render a final verdict.
