• Washington D.C. files a lawsuit challenging the deployment of National Guard troops ordered by President Trump.
• The lawsuit claims the deployment constitutes an unlawful military occupation and violates local autonomy.
• Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues that the deployment undermines the rule of law and public trust.
• Trump has framed the deployment as a crime-fighting measure, despite declining crime statistics in D.C.
• The lawsuit parallels a recent court ruling in California, asserting similar constitutional violations in troop deployments.

On September 4, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration aimed at stopping the deployment of National Guard troops in the capital. Schwalb argues that this deployment violates both the Constitution and federal law, labeling it an unlawful "military occupation" that undermines local governance. The lawsuit claims that President Trump "has run roughshod over a fundamental tenet of American democracy — that the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement," according to abcnews.

The lawsuit asserts that the deployment, initiated by Trump's executive order on August 11, involves approximately 2,300 National Guard troops acting without the proper authority and without necessary law enforcement training. Schwalb emphasizes that the presence of armed soldiers on city streets creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, which harms community-police relations. He stated, "No American city should have the US military — particularly out-of-state military who are not accountable to the residents," according to cbsnews and aljazeera.

The lawsuit also critiques the deployment's legality under the Home Rule Act, asserting that federal control over local law enforcement without the mayor's consent violates residents' rights. Schwalb's filing indicates that the action, particularly Trump's unilateral deployment of the National Guard, constitutes a breach of both local autonomy and the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement, as echoed in comments from reuters and newsweek.

Despite D.C. officials' concerns, the Trump administration defends the deployment as necessary for securing federal assets and reducing crime. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated that the lawsuit undermines efforts to combat violent crime in D.C., where some statistics suggest a decline in offenses since the troop presence began. Schwalb, however, counters that the operation has resulted in an "erosion of trust between residents and law enforcement," backed by statistical decreases in violent crime rates before the National Guard's arrival, as reported by bbc and channelnewsasia.

The lawsuit comes in the wake of a federal judge's ruling in California, which found Trump's previous use of National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes illegal. The issued injunction only applies to California but sets a precedent that may influence judicial perspectives on the D.C. case. Schwalb's latest legal action underscores a broader tension between local D.C. governance and the federal government's expansive military approach to crisis management, echoing sentiments documented by trtglobal and indiatimes.