WASHINGTON, D.C. – Washington D.C. faces significant challenges as it grapples with a drastic proposal from the House to slash $1.1 billion from the city’s budget. The city’s relationship with the federal government has historically been rocky during Republican leadership, but this move represents the most serious threat to Home Rule since its inception under the Nixon administration.
City officials argue that treating Washington, D.C. like a federal agency by cutting spending will severely harm essential services such as education and public safety. This proposal comes on the heels of comments from President Donald Trump advocating for greater federal control over the district. Coupled with legislative attempts from Republicans to strip D.C. of self-governance, these moves have been interpreted by Democrats as an attack on the city’s autonomy. District representatives are now appealing to the Senate to oppose the House’s plan.
The contested House bill caps the D.C. budget at 2024 levels, disregarding the city’s 2025 budget which relies on locally generated revenue and had been previously sanctioned by Congress. The city’s Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, alongside Mayor Muriel Bowser, had urged adherence to established budget practices but were rebuffed. According to Christina Henderson of the D.C. City Council, the speed with which these changes are proposed is uncharted and potentially reckless.
Jasmine Tyler from the Justice Policy Institute warned that implementing such cuts would exacerbate issues such as crime, reversing the district’s progress and precipitating sudden cuts to vital services including law enforcement and waste management. “This bell can’t be unrung,” Tyler emphasized.
While the Constitution grants Congress power over Washington D.C., the 1973 Home Rule Act permitted residents to elect their own local government. However, Congress retained significant oversight, including the power to approve the city’s budget and its laws. Members have historically used this authority to influence local governance according to their political agendas, such as blocking measures like needle exchange programs.
Policy and government expert Michael Fauntroy of George Mason University criticized the recent moves as unjustified interference, suggesting they could lead to direct federal control if reduced services provide a rationale. Discussion of Home Rule’s revocation is largely avoided by officials, as efforts focus on lobbying the Senate to amend the House’s budget proposal.
D.C. has been adjusting to reductions in federal jobs stemming from Trump-era policies, which has impacted many Black residents who relied on these roles for economic mobility. Mayor Bowser has attempted to address Republican concerns by accommodating changes, including the removal of the 2020 Black Lives Matter Plaza.
If the Senate amends the House’s plan, a prompt return of the House is necessary to avoid a governmental shutdown. Some senators, including Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, have vowed to counter the House’s decision, condemning it as undemocratic. John Capozzi Jr., a former D.C. shadow representative, expressed concerns about the city’s ability to avert this crisis without Senate intervention.
Monica Hopkins of the ACLU expressed cautious optimism, suggesting that the responsibility of handling D.C.’s issues might deter Congress from revoking Home Rule altogether. Nevertheless, the city’s future hangs in the balance as crucial decisions await the Senate’s consideration.
