DC attorney general sues to end federal National Guard deployment
Members of the National Guard patrol the National Mall in Washington, DC, on September 3, 2025. (Austin DeSisto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Washington, D.C., Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb filed a lawsuit on Thursday to end the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the city, calling it an unlawful “military occupation.”
Nearly 2,300 troops from seven states have been stationed in the district since Aug. 11, a move Schwalb says goes beyond the president’s authority and violates local autonomy under the Home Rule Act.
The lawsuit argues the troops were placed under Defense Department command and later deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to perform law enforcement, which Schwalb’s office says is “in violation of the foundational prohibition on military involvement in local law.”
By law, the president’s emergency deployment can last only 30 days unless extended by Congress, meaning the surge is set to expire Sept. 10.
Schwalb also alleges the federal government is unlawfully asserting command over state militias without formally bringing them into federal service, which he says is a violation of the Constitution and federal law.
The complaint says the deployments threaten to erode trust between residents and police, inflame tensions and damage the city’s economy — particularly in the restaurant and hospitality industries as, just last month, the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington extended summer restaurant week in an effort to draw customers during the surge.
The attorney general’s office further argues that the deployments violate the Home Rule Act by overriding local autonomy and undermining public safety “by inflaming tensions and eroding trust between District residents and law enforcement.”
Still, Gregg Pemberton, the D.C. union chairman said the long-term goal is for the Metropolitan Police Department to resume full responsibility.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Speaker Mike Johnson is working to keep the focus on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” on Friday as all eyes remain on President Donald Trump and Elon Musk amid their bitter public feud.
Johnson is pushing the House-passed bill that advances Trump’s legislative agenda, which is being negotiated in the Senate. Musk has publicly criticized the bill, calling it a “disgusting abomination” and encouraging members of Congress to “kill the bill.”
Musk’s criticism reached a boiling point on Thursday — ending with an explosive spat between the president and the tech billionaire. On Friday morning, Trump told ABC News that Musk had “lost his mind.”
Johnson was once one of Musk’s most powerful boosters on Capitol Hill. Johnson met with Musk repeatedly and would even talk him through legislation by phone. Musk even addressed a meeting of House Republicans in March.
Asked by ABC News if it was a mistake to trust Musk, Johnson dismissed the question and turned the focus back to the bill.
“I’m not going to engage in this back-and-forth stuff. I don’t think the American people care much about Twitter wars. I think they care about us accomplishing our legislative agenda, and the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ does that.”
Johnson reiterated Friday that he has a job to do — and it’s not to get involved in the Musk-Trump squabble. Still, Johnson engaged in the online battle Thursday, responding to a Musk post criticizing the speaker.
Several other House Republicans are weighing in on the dispute and whether Musk’s influence and strong opinions about the megabill could influence its passage.
“I think Elon probably did change the trajectory of this bill two or three days ago when he came out against it because people trust the guy who can land rockets backwards more than they do the politicians,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said. Massie was one of two House Republicans who opposed the bill when the House voted on it last month.
GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene sided with both Trump and Musk on different aspects of the bill — favoring Musk on the price tag. She said ultimately she thinks the focus should be on passing Trump’s agenda.
“I don’t think lashing out on the Internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other’s cell phones,” Greene told reporters Friday. “I hope this gets worked out, but I will tell you right now that people are going to be focused on making sure that we get the agenda that we voted for.”
Republican Rep Troy Nehls, a staunch Trump ally, called for an end to the spat between the president and Musk, saying “enough is enough.”
Despite Musk publicly clashing with the head of their party — even seeming to suggest the House should impeach the president — some Republicans didn’t go out of their way to bad mouth the billionaire.
“Elon Musk can use his funds as he sees fit,” Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said when asked if he’s worried Musk would primary Republicans. “Again, he’s a patriot and if he disagrees, I respect the honesty, really.”
Republican Rep. Warren Davidson called for unity.
“I just hope that people that I care a lot about get along, that they mend, that they patch up their relationship,” he said. “It’s disappointing to see them arguing in public that way.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries capitalized on the clash, calling it a “welcome development.”
“To the extent that the developments of this week will make it more likely that we can kill the GOP tax scam, that’s a welcome development,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche Monday morning seeking a public commitment that the DOJ will not advocate for a pardon or commutation for Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her cooperation.
The letter comes after Blanche met with Maxwell privately for nine hours over two days last week, and after ABC News first reported that Maxwell was granted limited immunity during her meetings with Blanche.
In the letter, the senators call the “purpose and timing” of Blanche’s meeting with Maxwell “perplexing.”
“It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the Deputy Attorney General to conduct such an interview, rather than line prosecutors who are familiar with the details of the case and can more readily determine if the witness is lying. In light of troves of corroborating evidence collected through multiple investigations, a federal jury conviction, and Ms. Maxwell’s history and willingness to lie under oath, as it relates to her dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, why would DOJ depart from long-standing precedent and now seek her cooperation?” Durbin and Whitehouse wrote.
The letter is a follow up to a letter Durbin wrote earlier this month to Attorney General Pam Bondi inquiring about alleged discrepancies in Bondi’s public comments about Epstein.
Blanche’s meeting, the senators allege, appears to be an effort to distract from Bondi’s past comments.
“It seems likely this meeting is another tactic to distract from DOJ’s failure to fulfill Attorney General Bondi’s commitment that the American people would see “the full Epstein files,” especially in light of credible reports that FBI officials were told to “flag” any Epstein files in which President Trump was mentioned and that Attorney General Bondi told the President that his name appeared in the files,” the senators wrote.
The lawmakers cite Maxwell’s “documented record of lying and her desire to secure early release” as cause or concern that she “may provide false information or selectively withhold information in return for a pardon or sentence commutation.”
When asked Monday if he would rule out a pardon for Maxwell, Trump responded by saying he has the power to give her a pardon but that he has not been asked about it yet.
“Well, I’m allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody’s approached me with it. Nobody’s asked me about it,” Trump said.
Trump told reporters on Friday that it was “inappropriate” to discuss a pardon then.
In addition to commitments to not advocate for a pardon or commutation for Maxwell, the senators also asked Blanche to commit that the DOJ will provide transparency to the victims and survivors of Epstein and Maxwell with respect to decisions the department makes regarding Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court, which seeks to overturn her conviction.
And they called for a release of the Epstein files.
“Rather than engaging in this elaborate ruse, DOJ should simply release the Epstein files, as Attorney General Bondi promised to do,” they write.
The senators posed a list of questions to Blanche, seeking an explanation for why Blanche believes Maxwell would now be truthful and asking what information the department believes she has that was not learned during her prosecution.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional.
There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran.
It’s unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump’s rank-and-file Republican base will broadly abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump’s desk, there likely wouldn’t be enough votes to override his veto.
“I don’t think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday afternoon at the Capitol.
Fears of escalation ramped up on Monday as Iran retaliated against the U.S. with a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The missiles were intercepted and there were no immediate reports of casualties at the base, according to U.S. officials.
Johnson said it’s up to Trump whether the United States responds to Iran’s attempt to retaliate on Monday.
“The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well. They’ve been very clear about their intentions and how much they hate us,” Johnson said. “The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed skepticism about Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend.
“We’ve seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution,” Jeffries said at a news conference in the Capitol on Monday. “And what I can say is not a scintilla of evidence to date has been presented that I have seen to justify the notion that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America.”
Trump’s decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden’s airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama’s military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama.
House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday.
Trump faces bipartisan blowback
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit “United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda.
All three appeared on “Face the Nation” on CBS News on Sunday to make their case.
Massie contended there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval.
Kaine similarly said: “This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump’s urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops’ lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress.”
Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back.
“I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence.
“There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail,” Khanna said on CBS. “We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we’re not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East.”
Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is “not MAGA” and that “MAGA doesn’t want him” and “doesn’t respect him.” Trump said he’ll campaign for Massie’s Republican primary opponent in the next election.
Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval.
In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump.
What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution?
The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump’s ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
Trump admin says strike was legally justified
Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration “complied with the notification requirements” of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified “after the planes were safely out.”
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran.
Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn’t negotiate a deal.
“If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump’s decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution.
“Congress can declare war or cut off funding,” Graham said. “We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commanders-in-chief.”
The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions.
Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage “perpetual worldwide wars” and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it — but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
