The Battle for Washington
The president and Congress are eyeing a hostile takeover of the capital city
Despite being the heart of American democracy, Washington, D.C. remains denied full self-rule—its laws subject to congressional veto and its people without a vote in Congress. As new political threats emerge, the fight for D.C.’s right to govern itself is more urgent than ever.
WASHINGTON— I moved to Washington, D.C. in 1996 to attend American University. Like so many students before me, I came for the politics and the promise of possibility. I expected to leave after four years. But nearly three decades later, I’m still here—still captivated by this city’s rhythm, its resilience, and its restless desire to be something more.
What I didn’t know at the time, what I couldn’t have fully understood at eighteen, was just how fragile D.C.’s claim to self-determination really was. After graduation, I paid taxes here, I voted in local elections, and I watched our mayors govern through boom and bust. But always, hovering above it all, was Congress—ready at any moment to veto our will. Washington may be the seat of American democracy, but its residents have never been granted the full rights of citizenship.
A City Without a Vote
Washington, D.C. is a paradox. It is home to over 700,000 residents—more than Vermont or Wyoming—yet it has no voting representation in the United States Congress. As the U.S. Constitution states, Congress holds “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal district. And that power has been used repeatedly to block, override, or threaten the laws and rights of D.C. residents.
In July, that threat became headline news once again when President Donald Trump floated the idea of a federal takeover of Washington’s government. Citing crime and homelessness, he said bluntly, “We could run D.C. flawlessly… We would run it so good, it would be run so proper… The crime would be down to a minimum.” He even suggested replacing the elected mayor with a presidentially appointed administrator, claiming, “We’d get the best person to run it.”
This week, following a brutal 3 a.m. assault on Sunday near Dupont Circle on Edward Coristine—a 19-year-old government employee known as “Big Balls” and a prominent voice in the DOGE initiative to shrink government—by a group of about 10 juveniles, President Trump once again reignited his call to bring Washington, D.C. under his total control.
These aren’t the only times Trump has suggested a federal takeover—he did so regularly during his first administration and on the campaign trail. However, his most recent calls come at a time when Republicans control both chambers of Congress. The idea, once unthinkable, suddenly seems entirely plausible.
Mayor Muriel Bowser has responded with cautious realism. “When a President has both houses of Congress, limited home rule is just that,” she said, acknowledging how precarious D.C.’s local authority is. D.C. Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton was more direct, calling Trump’s comments “a dangerous escalation” and warning that any effort to strip D.C. of its limited autonomy would be met with fierce resistance.
But none of this is new. The District’s history is a long saga of striving for self-governance, only to be repeatedly denied.
The Long Road to Home Rule
In the early days of the republic, residents of what would become D.C. still voted in Maryland or Virginia elections. However, in 1801, when Congress formally assumed control of the District, those rights were abolished. For more than 70 years, the city had no elected local government.
That changed briefly in 1871, when Congress established a territorial-style government with an appointed governor and an elected legislature. But after a few years of financial mismanagement, Congress abolished the system in 1874 and replaced it with a presidentially appointed three-member board of commissioners. Washingtonians wouldn’t have another elected mayor for a full century.
The real breakthrough came in 1973, when Congress passed the Home Rule Act. Signed by President Richard Nixon, the law enabled D.C. residents to elect their own mayor and city council, granting them authority over local legislation and budgeting. But there was a catch: Congress retained the right to review and overturn any local law, and all of D.C.’s budgets had to be approved by Congress.
In other words, home rule was granted, but never guaranteed.
This imbalance has played out repeatedly. Congress has used its oversight powers to block the city from funding abortion care for low-income women, regulating marijuana, or even implementing local voting rights for non-citizens. In 2023, Congress overturned a D.C. criminal justice reform law. President Joe Biden—who supports D.C. statehood—signed the repeal, saying, “I support D.C. statehood and home-rule—but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward.”
The Fragile Line Between Democracy and Control
When Trump suggests taking over D.C., he isn’t operating in a vacuum. A similar federal intervention happened in the 1990s, when financial mismanagement led Congress to impose a Control Board with sweeping authority over the city’s budget. That board operated until 2001, effectively suspending home rule during that period.
What makes Trump’s remarks particularly alarming is not just their authoritarian tone, but how plausible they are under current law. As Reuters reported, “For Trump to take over the city, Congress likely would have to pass a law revoking [the Home Rule Act], which Trump would have to sign.” In theory, Congress could abolish D.C.’s elected government tomorrow, and there’s nothing Washingtonians (or anyone else) could do to stop it.
As D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson put it, “The federal government doesn’t have a good track record from when it used to run the city. [A takeover] is much more complicated than five-minute statements.”
What’s Really at Stake
The debate over D.C. statehood is often reduced to partisan shorthand—two Senate seats for Democrats, given the city’s long history of liberalism. But the real issue is one of fairness, governance, and belonging.
Washington, D.C., pays more in federal taxes per capita than any state in the country. Yet our residents have no voting members in Congress. We fight in wars, serve on juries, and follow federal laws—without any direct say in how those laws are made. As former mayor Anthony Williams put it years ago, “There are only three groups of people denied voting rights in our country: children, convicted criminals, and citizens of the District of Columbia.”
The city’s budget, despite being funded mainly through local taxes, still requires federal approval. D.C. cannot tax the incomes of non-residents, even though hundreds of thousands of people commute into the city each day and use its services. Nearly 43% of the land in the District is tax-exempt, primarily due to federal ownership. Unlike governors, the mayor cannot deploy the National Guard in emergencies. And the U.S. Attorney—not a locally elected prosecutor—handles major criminal cases.
All of this means that Washington, D.C. is both a modern metropolis and a colonial relic—governed by others and vulnerable to outside whims. Every Washingtonian lives with the ever-present knowledge that the right to self-determination and self-governance can be taken away at a moment’s notice, and that may soon become reality.
If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider sharing it. If you have a lead for a story, please leave a comment or message me.
https://open.substack.com/pub/cliffwilliams/p/trumps-dc-takeover-plan-false-claims?r=237mn9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false