On Wednesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower-court injunction that had blocked the deployment — or even the request for deployment — of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. The ruling allows the administration to move forward while the appeal is fully litigated.
The case stems from an August memorandum issued by President Trump directing the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the D.C. National Guard to combat violent crime and restore public safety in the capital. The memo also authorized coordination with state governors to deploy additional Guard units to Washington if necessary.
Predictably, D.C.’s leadership wasn’t thrilled.
In September, the District sued Trump and nearly every federal entity imaginable — including the Department of Defense, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Marshals Service — claiming the Guard deployment violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The city then sought a preliminary injunction to shut the operation down.
D.C. District Court Judge Jia Cobb granted that injunction in November, though she paused its effect for 21 days to give the administration time to appeal. The Trump administration wasted no time and immediately took the fight to the D.C. Circuit.
Earlier this month, the appeals court issued an administrative stay. Wednesday’s order replaces that temporary pause with a formal stay pending appeal — a much stronger signal that the lower court’s ruling is on shaky ground.
The decision was issued per curiam and came with a 27-page explanatory statement authored by Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and joined by Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees. That bipartisan alignment alone tells you something.
Millett’s statement methodically walks through the history of the National Guard, the statutory authority governing its deployment, and the unique constitutional status of Washington, D.C. It’s less a polemic and more a quiet reminder that Congress — not progressive city officials — ultimately controls the capital.
Subtle? Yes. Accidental? Not a chance.
To be clear, this isn’t the final word. D.C. could ask for rehearing en banc, and the merits panel will still rule on the underlying legal questions. As Millett herself noted, the stay does not bind the panel reviewing the case in full.
It also shouldn’t be automatically applied to other Guard-related lawsuits involving deployments within states, since D.C. is a federal district with a very different legal framework.
Still, none of that changes the bottom line.
The injunction is paused. Trump’s authority is restored — for now. And yet again, a court has stepped in to remind local officials that Washington, D.C., is not a sovereign playground for ideological experiments.
A win is a win. And this one absolutely goes on the board for the Trump administration.
