On August 11, President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to Washington D.C. and federalized the city’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Armed troops are patrolling the streets of D.C. with an influx of agents from the FBI, DHS, DEA, ICE, the State Department, and other federal agencies. Guard troops from Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Ohio joined the D.C. troops, swelling their ranks to over 2,000. President Trump said he intends to extend federal law enforcement to other American cities, suggesting New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland as possible targets. As an organization, RT4 has argued that the military should be prohibited from providing some forms of assistance to local police departments, because it undermines and threatens our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
Military Incursion Into Civilian Affairs
The deployment of the National Guard presents “special threats to constitutional government inherent in military enforcement of civil law” (Haig v. Bissonette 1985). The first Trump administration’s deployment of federal troops to Portland in response to protests over the murder of George Floyd illustrates these “special threats.” Nominally, troops were there to protect federal property like monuments and courthouses, much like the current deployments in D.C. However, reports later showed that federal officers drove around Portland in unmarked vehicles in which they subsequently detained protesters , removing them from the public “without either arresting them or stating the basis for an arrest.” DHS surveilled journalists covering the Portland protests, and circulated “intelligence reports” on them to other federal agencies. Federal officers used tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray and other tactics, resulting in compensatory damages for excessive force. Perhaps the most extreme exercise of federal power in Portland was the extrajudicial killing of Michael Reinoehl.
In June, the Trump administration deployed 2,000 NG troops and 700 active-duty marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against heightened ICE enforcement operations. According to the LAPD, protests were mostly peaceful, and local law enforcement was able to handle escalations into violence or chaos without the need for federal intervention. Similar to the Portland deployments, the administration authorized federal forces to protect federal personnel, property, and functions. But it remains unclear what actions legally fall under this remit. For example, troops accompanied ICE personnel on raids of private residences and marijuana farms, and marines temporarily apprehended and detained a civilian.1 Did these instances fall under a “federal purpose?”
The Posse Comitatus Act bars active-duty U.S. military from enforcing domestic law, unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act, which he has not done. The National Guard is covered by the Posse Comitatus Act when called “into federal service” under the president’s command. Current and previous National Guard deployments are blurring the line between federal authority and civilian policing. Troops are not trained in local policing, and may not understand what the law allows or does not allow them to do; and the prospect of successfully suing a National Guardsman for violating your rights is even dimmer than the prospect of successfully suing a local officer Americans are left even more vulnerable to violations of their rights.
Current deployments in D.C. have the potential to create the civil unrest they are nominally intended to prevent, just as they did in Portland and Los Angeles, but there are some key differences. Congress has primary jurisdiction over the District, and the President has much more authority in the day-to-day operations of the capital than he does in the states. However, under the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, D.C. has its own local government that consists of a mayor, D.C. council members, and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners. D.C.’s unique status and legal configuration has raised novel questions about the limits of executive power, especially the President’s role as commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard. RT4 reserves its position on these legal questions and awaits further litigation.
Events So Far In Washington, D.C.
On August 11th, President Trump issued Executive Order 14333, Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia, stating: “Rising violence in the capital now urgently endangers public servants, citizens, and tourists, disrupts safe and secure transportation and the proper functioning of the Federal Government, and forces the diversion of critical public resources toward emergency response and security measures.”
In a press conference announcing the federal takeover of D.C.’s police department and deployment of the NG, the president said “Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we’re not going to let it happen anymore. We’re not going to take it.”
The president invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to requisition the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for “federal purposes” that the president “may deem necessary and appropriate.” Local crime prevention is not a federal purpose, thus bringing into question the limits and bounds of the Constitutional and statutory authority that President Trump is relying upon. After President Trump replaced the D.C. police commissioner with a Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator, Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the President may use the MPD for federal law enforcement purposes in emergency situations, but that control of the MPD must remain under the mayor and police chief.
The executive may only invoke Section 740 under conditions of an emergency, but official crime statistics don’t paint a picture of an emergency. Preliminary year-to-date crime comparisons from MPD show that overall crime has decreased by 7% since last year, with violent crime down 26% and property crime down by 5%. The President suspended MPD’s 3rd district commander after allegations of changing crime statistics to minimize the serious crimes, and the administration has relied on this case to claim official crime statistics are inaccurate. But Council on Criminal Justice data shows that since 2023 crime has declined in over three dozen U.S. cities, including D.C. Regardless, violent crime in D.C. would need to have suddenly increased to justify emergency measures, and that has yet to be firmly established. As we have argued before, the President should not have unilateral power to determine what is and is not an emergency, and already has too many emergency powers as it is. Congress could have prevented this by acting last year to pass the National Emergencies Act and fixing the Insurrection Act.
In a separate executive order, Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia, the president has invoked his authority as the Commander in Chief of the D.C. National Guard to deploy soldiers to the streets of D.C. Troops from outside states are operating under Title 32 status, so they remain under state control but perform federal duties requested by the president. The president may keep National Guard troops deployed for 30-days under statute, but requires a joint resolution of Congress to extend their presence.
Troops are primarily positioned in tourist areas such as the National Mall, large monuments, and metro stations near entertainment sites like the Smithsonian, Eastern Market and Foggy Bottom. So far this is in line with their intended “support” function. However, the overreach of federal law enforcement in the capitol has already become obvious. Prosecution of a man who hurled a sandwich at a federal agent was thwarted by a grand jury who refused to indict him. Magistrate Judge Faruqui was “absolutely flabbergasted” that a Mr. Torez Riley was illegally searched outside of a Trader Joe’s store and jailed for a week before prosecutors elected to drop the case. Faruqui concluded that “It is without a doubt the most illegal search I have ever seen in my life”
Federal Agents and Police Checkpoints
The White House claims there have been over 1,000 arrests since August 7th and that number is certain to increase. These arrests include aggravated assault, firearm violations, drug and alcohol violations, failure to identify, DUIs, and minor traffic violations, amongst others. One arrest involved a Virginia man who had an outstanding warrant for grand larceny. Many of these reported arrests are occurring at improvised security checkpoints, like the one in the Navy Yard neighborhood, and in nightlife areas like the Shaw neighborhood.
Those who were arrested are appearing before a magistrate for charges normally handled in local courts. Government lawyers have been instructed to file the most serious federal charges, regardless of how minor the incident is.
An influx of federal agents, particularly from DHS, ICE, and HSI, have joined law enforcement activities normally handled solely by local police officers. According to reports, “Federal agents have hunted for guns and stolen vehicles, conducted drug busts and chased down members of the public who ran when approached. Some agents could be seen pulling over cars for minor infractions, or reminding people at a sobriety checkpoint to wear their seatbelts.” Vehicle checkpoints throughout the city, and far from federal property, are purportedly for “traffic safety compliance,” according to the MPD. However, federal agents were running sobriety tests at these same checkpoints. This is in addition to heightened immigration enforcement and pretextual stops for minor offenses to justify more thorough searches and arrests. Homeland Security Investigations officers, whose remit involves investigating international crimes, enforced local traffic laws and verified vehicle tags.
The ambiguity of purpose, competing explanations, and blurred distinction between federal and local law enforcement at these police checkpoints raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. The Supreme Court ruled in the 2000 case City of Indianapolis v. Edmond that police roadblocks or checkpoints are legal only if they serve a specific road safety purpose. “We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime,” wrote Justice O’Connor.2 Because a search or seizure is unreasonable absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, a checkpoint’s primary purpose being “indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control” violates the Fourth Amendment.3
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled “Neighborhood Safety Zone” checkpoints in the Trinidad neighborhood were unconstitutional. The ACLU successfully sued to shut down Border Patrol checkpoints operated by CBP in northern New England in 2023. The ACLU rightfully argued that “It is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment for CBP to use interior checkpoints, nearly 100 miles from the border, as a ruse to unlawfully search and seize people for the purpose of so-called general crime control.” Prolonged stops by CBP should be “for the sole purpose” of assessing immigration status.4 Without a focused and clear road safety purpose, the checkpoints run by federal agents and MPD officers in D.C. could run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Lawfulness aside, the events of Portland in 2020 and Los Angeles in June 2025 demonstrate that deploying DHS officers to city streets can rapidly lead to conflict.
Restore The Fourth
Deploying the military for civilian law enforcement violates a longstanding historical tradition that separates civilian policing from military operations. After the 1790 Boston Massacre, Thomas Jefferson cited the misuse of British troops for law enforcement as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence.5 The Articles of Confederation, and later on the Constitution, include law that restricts and limits the power and use of the military. Even early presidents who did use their “calling forth” authority “understood that the military was there only to assist civilian power in enforcing the law, not to supplant local authority” in times of rebellion and insurrection (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion).
Our history is one that reflects a key principle – standing armies have great potential to restrict our civil liberties. They can be easily abused by an authoritarian president to accomplish their own goals, so they must be used sparingly. The administration’s actions betray this fundamental idea. A recent executive order signed by President Trump on August 25th, 2025, assigns secretary of defense Pete Hegseth to establish “specialized units” in the National Guard that will be “specifically trained and equipped to deal with public order issues.” Furthermore, the administration is considering plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Task Force” composed of 600 National Guard troops on standby. These troops would be deployed in American cities “experiencing unrest.” Currently, states already have their own standby troops in case of emergency, and can request federal assistance if necessary.
We should not, and cannot, further normalize the U.S. military’s presence in domestic law enforcement. Chief Justice Warren cautioned us:
“The military establishment is, of course, a necessary organ of government; but the reach of its power must be carefully limited lest the delicate balance between freedom and order be upset. The maintenance of the balance is made more difficult by the fact that, while the military serves the vital function of preserving the existence of the nation, it is, at the same time, the one element of government that exercises a type of authority not easily assimilated in a free society.”6
The antithesis of a free society is the surveillance state, a United States that does not protect and treasure its Fourth Amendment.
- DHS also conducted clandestine surveillance of protesters in LA using predator drone: https://time.com/7293743/drones-los-angeles-protests-law-enforcement/
↩︎ - Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) ↩︎
- Id. 32
↩︎ - United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
↩︎ - “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
↩︎ - Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) ↩︎