Appeals Court Pauses Troop Withdrawal amid D.C. Security Tensions

WASHINGTON — An appeals court has paused the troop withdrawal of National Guard forces from Washington, D.C., as the capital faces heightened security tensions. The temporary order blocks a lower-court ruling and keeps troops in place while judges review the legal fight over presidential authority and public safety.

U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb found on November 20 that President Donald Trump's solo decision to send the National Guard to D.C. was an abuse of power that infringed on the district's jurisdiction over law enforcement. Judge Cobb pointed out that while the president has the right to safeguard federal property and the functions of the government, he is not allowed to deploy troops on his own or get forces from other states without local consent.

The Trump administration has already responded to the ruling by filing a motion for a stay. The court of appeals, in fact, has granted the motion holding that a temporary pause is appropriate due to the lack of a final judgment and the limited scope of the stay. The court indicated that the order is not a final decision but rather provides the time needed to consider the administration's request for a longer stay.

The White House backed up the president's moves. "When the president commanded the National Guard to move to D.C., that was exactly what he was permitted to do," stated White House press secretary Abigail Jackson, showing conviction that the administration's position in the law will be victorious in the end.

At the beginning of August, President Trump enacted an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the Washington area. Consequently, the Guard was activated with more than 2,300 troops coming from eight states and the district under the command of the Secretary of the Army. The situation was escalated with officers from the federal government put in control of law enforcement amid tension and violent incidents.

Appeals Court Pauses Troop Withdrawal Amid D.C. Security Tensions

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb led the legal action against the deployment, asserting that the White House had no authority to send the Guard without the mayor's consent. The complaint also aimed to prevent the administration from making additional unapproved troop movements while the legal proceedings were ongoing.

The challenge regarding the use of military forces in American cities has been a subject of debate nationwide. For example, in Los Angeles, the federal government has already transferred several Guard units. In Chicago and Portland, Oregon, they have attempted to perform similar operations. Legal authorities have done so in different ways, creating uncertainty about the issue.

The conflict in the appeals court comes at a time when relations between the two sides have been becoming tenser after the fatal incident involving National Guard members near the White House. Eight days ago, at a nearby subway station, Specialist Sarah Beckstrom of the West Virginia National Guard was attacked in such a way that led to her death. Another Guard member, Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, was hurt but he is getting better. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, the assailant, has entered a plea of not guilty to murder charges.

As a reaction to this event, the administration has made a move to call the D.C. National Guard for 500 more members. This week, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders revealed her plan to take 100 troops to support the administration's effort.

The appeals court's stay will be extended beyond the original 21-day period, thus, the presence of troops in D.C. during that time is quite uncertain. The conflict is about who should hold the power to decide. On the one hand, presidential authority can decide the use of the military; on the other hand, district government is in charge of governance. This could have major consequences not only for the relationship between the military and the public but also for the field of national security.