ACLU-D.C. Comments on One-Year Anniversary of National Guard Troops in the Nation’s Capital

Despite a lawsuit, protests by D.C. residents, and opposition from local elected leaders, the Pentagon confirmed last month that National Guard troops will continue to patrol the District until the end of Trump’s term in January 2029.

August 11, 2026 10:00 pm

Media Contact

[email protected]

WASHINGTON - On August 11, 2025, President Trump announced that he was deploying National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C. Despite a lawsuit, protests by D.C. residents, and opposition from local elected leaders, the Pentagon confirmed last month that National Guard troops will continue to patrol the District until the end of Trump’s term in January 2029.

The American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. has been among the vocal critics of the presence of National Guard troops in D.C. and has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with other advocates in the District’s challenge to the deployment. ACLU-D.C. Executive Director Monica Hopkins remarked on the one-year anniversary:

“For one year, the people who live and work in D.C. have faced the unnerving presence of military troops on our streets, ordered there by our own country’s federal government. The Pentagon’s acknowledgment that the deployment will continue until 2029 confirms what we’ve said all along – there is no real emergency here. National Guard troops should only be deployed for true emergencies, like natural disasters or a riot at the capitol that attempts to disrupt the transfer of presidential power. Our country’s military must not be a political prop.

“The District experiences challenges like any large population center, but we were in the midst of a reported crime decrease when Trump deployed troops here. As was true one year ago, armed military troops are not needed and are not wanted on our streets. Guard members should be home with their families unless they are needed for a real emergency, particularly when their unjust deployment in D.C. costs taxpayers $3 million per day.

“Several governors have wisely brought their state’s National Guard members home, and it’s time for all the remaining governors to end their participation in Trump’s theatrics.

“Because the nation's capital is not legally recognized as a state, extremist politicians have used D.C. as a testing ground for anti-democratic orders. That’s exactly what’s happening with the ongoing deployment of National Guard troops in D.C., and we cannot become numb to the sight of military troops patrolling our neighborhoods. We cannot let military deployment on the streets of the United States become normal or acceptable as a part of daily life here or anywhere else.

“No state would tolerate a one-year deployment of National Guard troops or the expectation that it will continue for three more years. The military presence in our nation's capital must end, and D.C. must become the 51st state. Our local and national democracy depend on it.”

Related Content

Court Case
Jun 25, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +1 Issue

O’Hara v. Beck – Defending the Right To Protest the National Guard

In Star Wars, the Imperial March is the music that plays when Darth Vader and his storm troopers enter the scene. It’s also the soundtrack of Sam O’Hara’s protest against the National Guard’s presence in D.C. National Guard troops arrived in the District after President Donald Trump deployed them to support local police—an act that Mr. O’Hara views as a violation of centuries-old norms against militarizing domestic law enforcement and a threat to individual freedom. To highlight the surreal danger of the deployment, Mr. O’Hara began walking behind Guard members when he saw them in the community, playing The Imperial March on his phone, and recording. Most community members got the point of the protest, and so did several members of the Guard, who either smiled or laughed in response. Ohio National Guard Sgt. Devon Beck, however, was not amused by the satire. He threatened to call MPD if Mr. O’Hara didn’t stop his protest. When Mr. O’Hara persisted, Sgt. Beck recruited MPD officers to the scene, and the officers proceeded to detain and handcuff Mr. O’Hara, ending his demonstration. The First and Fourth Amendments (not to mention D.C. law) bar government officials from detaining people just because of their speech. Mr. O’Hara is suing to vindicate that principle. Sgt. Beck moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing among other things that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because he did not violate rights that were "clearly established." That motion remains pending. Meanwhile, in June 2026, the remaining defendants — the D.C. government and its officers — agreed to compensate Mr. O'Hara in exchange for dismissal of the claims against them. Press Release
Court Case
Jul 29, 2026
Placeholder image

King v. United States – Challenging National Guard Members’ Violent Seizure of a Veteran

Anna King is a retired U.S. Army captain and an Iraq War veteran, receiving a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for her service. On May 8, 2026, she was at her home when three National Guard members walked through her gated patio and seized her, shoving her toward the ground, grabbing her arms, and applying handcuffs so tightly that they ruptured ligaments in her wrist, requiring surgery. It appears the officers who arrived at Ms. King’s home did not have a warrant for Ms. King’s arrest. In conjunction with the law firm Levy Firestone Muse LLP, we filed an administrative Federal Tort Claims Act complaint with the Idaho National Guard (which employs several of the Guard members involved) and the Department of Defense to vindicate King’s rights.