POLICE REQUEST 60-DAY EXTENSION OF GUARD
Pentagon will decide on whether to keep forces at U.S. Capitol
U.S. Capitol Police have requested a 60-day extension of some of the 5,200 National Guard members activated in the District of Columbia in response to security threats and the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, defense officials said Thursday.
Three defense officials said that the Defense Department received the extension and that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Army officials will consider it. If approved, it would keep Guard members on duty through May, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
About 5,200 Guard troops are on duty in Washington now, staffing a security perimeter around the Capitol that includes miles of fencing around one of the major symbols of American democracy. It was installed after the riot launched by supporters of President Donald Trump after a “Stop the Steal” rally in support of his claims that he won the election.
The D.C. National Guard referred questions about the request to the Pentagon.
“The current mission extends to March 12,” said Capt. Edwin Nieves, a spokesman for the D.C. National Guard. “We do not have an authorized extension of that mission
at this time.”
The request appeared to catch Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser by surprise.
“It was our expectation that the additional forces would be leaving now,” she said, adding that Capitol Police have had limited communication with the city about their security requests. “We don’t know why additional forces have been requested until May . ... It was our expectation that the National Guard support would be lessened significantly around this time.”
The request comes after Capitol Police officials said Wednesday that they had information about a possible attempt by a militia group to breach the Capitol on Thursday, a date that some followers of the QAnon extremist ideology falsely claim will mark Trump’s return to the White House. The House canceled a session on Thursday in response, while the Senate remained in session
to consider President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.
“We have already made significant security upgrades to include establishing a physical structure and increasing manpower to ensure the protection of Congress, the public and our police officers,” police said in a statement Wednesday.
Concerns about QAnon at the Capitol were not borne out Thursday. While Guard members remained on duty and the fencing and barbed wire is still in place, there was no violence.
Rumors of the National Guard extending its stay in Washington have been persistent for weeks.
One defense official familiar with the talks said that discussions have included the possibility of scaling back the number of troops around the Capitol, but keeping others ready at the D.C. Armory, about 2 miles away, for a possible emergency.
The National Guard initially responded a few hours after the breach of the Capitol, in a move that critics have said was too slow. Its presence expanded to about 26,000 members from across the country for Biden’s Jan. 20 inauguration, and has steadily declined since.
The entire D.C. National Guard has about 2,700 soldiers and airmen, according to Guard officials. About 1,100 of them are devoted to the Capitol security mission, Nieves said.
They are supplemented by Guard members from multiple states, who are sent at the direction of their governors. While in D.C., they are all under the command of Maj. Gen. William Walker, the head of the D.C. National Guard.
The appearance of the military forces, and the onerous security measures in place, have become controversial — and politicized — in recent weeks.
On Thursday, Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., whose state has Guard members in D.C., expressed frustration with a lack of transparency by the Capitol Police.
“Getting information from Capitol Police leadership has been like pulling teeth,” he said in a tweet. “Direct answers are hard to come by — I learn more from what’s leaked to media than in briefings. We cannot allow the National Guard to be used as a bandaid for a lack of USCP strategy/leadership.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued her first signed majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, siding with the government over an environmental group seeking draft agenda reports about potential harm to endangered species.
The 7-to-2 opinion said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not have to provide the Sierra Club the guidance it gave the Environmental Protection Agency about a proposed rule regarding power plants that use water to cool their
equipment.
The rest of the court’s conservatives joined Barrett’s opinion, as did liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer
and Sonia Sotomayor issued a mild dissent.
The case was the first Barrett heard after President Donald Trump nominated her to replace liberal
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 26 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club was argued on Nov. 3.
It is customary for a new justice to receive a lopsided — if not unanimous — ruling as a first assignment. Barrett’s opinion, assigned by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., was a fact-laden interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides the public with access to documents used by the government in making decisions.
But there are exceptions to the law, and one concerns the “deliberative process privilege.”
It protects documents generated during an agency’s deliberations about policy, as opposed to documents that explain the policy the agency adopts.
Barrett said the “inhouse drafts” that the Sierra Club sought were protected, because they reflected “a preliminary view — not a final decision — about the likely effect of the EPA’s proposed rule on endangered species.”
Barrett, 49, was a Notre Dame law professor before Trump nominated her to serve on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court.
Her writing style as a lower court judge was explanatory, and with little rhetorical embellishment. Her 11-page opinion Thursday was similar in tone, with a step-by-step explanation of the bureaucratic process that accompanies the development of an EPA rule, and when advice from agencies should be considered preliminary rather than an official statement.
In his dissent, Breyer said there were reasons to think such “draft” opinions were really the documents that affect whether the EPA proceeds with a rule.
“Agency practice shows that the Draft Biological Opinion, not the Final Biological Opinion, is the document that informs the EPA of the services’ conclusions about jeopardy,” Breyer wrote.
He noted that of nearly 7,000 formal consultations between the agencies, Fish and Wildlife issued final opinions finding jeopardy only twice.