D.C. Home Rule Under Threat

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The Fight for D.C. Autonomy

The District of Columbia, a city with a majority Black and Brown population, finds its limited self-governance under renewed attack. President Donald Trump has publicly supported congressional efforts to place Washington D.C. under direct federal control (darnews.com). This move would significantly erode the city’s autonomy and could potentially reinstate a D.C. Control Board. In December 2024, President Trump expressed his approval for putting the District of Columbia back under direct federal control, backing congressional pushes to achieve this (darnews.com).

While Congress already has the authority to vet and overturn D.C. laws under the city’s Home Rule, some congressional Republicans are seeking to go further by placing D.C. under direct federal control, as it was at its founding (darnews.com). In February 2025, Trump’s comments about the federal government taking over D.C. were seen by some as a continuation of “anti-democratic rhetoric” from Republicans concerning the District of Columbia (nbcwashington.com). The president has the power to reinstate the D.C. Control Board, which would signify a significant reduction in the city’s self-governance (nbcwashington.com).

Understanding D.C. Home Rule

D.C. Home Rule refers to the limited self-governance granted to the District of Columbia through the Home Rule Act of 1973. This act allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor and city council, giving them some autonomy to pass local laws (wusa9.com, wjla.com). However, all D.C. legislation is still subject to approval by the U.S. Congress (wusa9.com).

Repealing Home Rule, as proposed by the BOWSER Act, would effectively strip D.C. of its elected local government and return direct congressional control over the city’s affairs (wjla.com, wusa9.com). This would mean that Congress would directly manage the city’s budget, laws, and services, removing the ability of D.C. residents to elect their own representatives to govern local matters. The distinction between Congress’s existing authority to vet D.C. laws and the proposed direct federal control is significant. Currently, Congress has veto power over D.C. legislation (wusa9.com). Direct federal control, however, would eliminate the elected local government entirely, placing the direct management of D.C.’s affairs under the complete authority of Congress or a federally appointed body. This would remove any semblance of local autonomy and democratic representation for D.C. residents.

The D.C. Control Board

The D.C. Control Board, officially known as the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, was a federally appointed body established in 1995. Its primary role was to oversee the financial management of the District of Columbia during a period of severe fiscal crisis. The Board had significant power, including the ability to approve the city’s budget, contracts, and even override decisions made by the elected mayor and city council. Its establishment effectively curtailed D.C.’s Home Rule authority, as it took over many functions typically managed by local government. The Control Board was eventually phased out in 2001 after the city’s finances improved.

The President does not directly reinstate the D.C. Control Board. The Control Board was established by an act of Congress. Therefore, its reinstatement would require new legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The legal mechanism for this lies in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia (lee.senate.gov). This clause provides Congress with the power to create and dissolve governing structures for D.C., including a control board, as it did in 1995. The precedent for such an action is the original establishment of the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.

Mayor Bowser’s Stance

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has faced criticism for her perceived cooperation with federal law enforcement efforts initiated by the Trump administration, despite her past opposition to federal intervention. In March 2025, Mayor Bowser was described as “dealing with Trump” in a way that suggests a complex relationship, particularly concerning issues like federal control and homelessness (georgetowner.com). In January 2024, Mayor Bowser publicly questioned the use of federal forces in D.C. by the Trump administration, asking “Who’s next?” in a critical tone (msnbc.com).

Mayor Bowser has consistently advocated for D.C. autonomy and statehood, opposing federal control efforts that undermine the city’s self-governance. While the provided search results do not detail a specific evolution of her stance, they indicate her strong opposition to the BOWSER Act, which is named after her and seeks to repeal Home Rule (wusa9.com, lee.senate.gov). The bill’s proponents accuse her and the city council of being “incapable of managing the city,” implying a direct challenge to her leadership and the city’s current governance (wusa9.com). Her “complex relationship” with a previous administration and criticism of federal forces likely stem from instances where federal actions were perceived as infringing on D.C.’s local authority or public safety.

The “BOWSER Act”

Congressional Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at repealing D.C.’s Home Rule, with one such bill even being named after Mayor Muriel Bowser. In July 2025, legislation was introduced that would repeal D.C.’s Home Rule, and it was named after Mayor Muriel Bowser (wusa9.com). This is not the first time D.C.’s Home Rule has been threatened; in May 2024, there were two separate attacks on D.C.’s Home Rule Act in Congress on the same day (wusa9.com).

The legislation named after Mayor Bowser is the “Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act,” introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) (wusa9.com, lee.senate.gov). Its primary provision is to repeal the District of Columbia Home Rule Act one year after its passage (lee.senate.gov, wjla.com). The stated goals of the bill are to address what its sponsors perceive as “corruption, crime, and incompetence” within the D.C. government, particularly citing the city’s failure to prevent violent crime, corruption, and the allowance of non-citizen voting (lee.senate.gov, wusa9.com, nbcwashington.com). The political context is a push by some Republican members of Congress to exert greater federal control over D.C., arguing that the current local government has failed to effectively manage the nation’s capital. The bill’s naming after Mayor Bowser is a direct criticism of her administration and its policies.

“Anti-Democratic Rhetoric”

The “anti-democratic rhetoric” in the context of D.C. Home Rule primarily stems from the argument that D.C. is not a state and therefore does not deserve the same level of self-governance. Proponents of federal control often cite Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which grants Congress authority over the nation’s capital, to justify overriding local D.C. laws and even repealing Home Rule (lee.senate.gov). The rhetoric also includes criticisms of D.C.’s local governance, such as accusations of “corruption, crime, and incompetence” and concerns about policies like allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (wusa9.com, lee.senate.gov, nbcwashington.com). These arguments are seen as undermining the democratic rights of D.C. residents to govern themselves.

Senator Mike Lee and Representative Andy Ogles argue that “the corruption, crime, and incompetence of the D.C. government has been an embarrassment to our nation’s capital for decades” (wusa9.com, lee.senate.gov). Critics of D.C. Home Rule also point to the city’s decision to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections as a reason for federal intervention (nbcwashington.com). Representative Ogles stated that the nation’s capital “cannot continue to be a cesspool of Democrats’ failed policies” (wjla.com). Delegate Norton (D-D.C.) stated in July 2024 that the Republican response is to “try to take away what small measure of democracy the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, have” (wusa9.com).

Impact on D.C. Residents

The potential repeal of Home Rule or a federal takeover would have profound implications for the daily lives and political rights of D.C. residents. It would mean that decisions about local services, education, public safety, and the city’s budget would be made by individuals who are not accountable to D.C. voters. This would effectively disenfranchise the nearly 700,000 residents of the District, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, denying them the basic democratic right to self-governance.

The historical context of D.C.’s governance is crucial to understanding the current debates. At its founding, D.C. was under direct federal control. The Home Rule Act of 1973 was a significant step towards granting residents a voice in their local affairs. A return to direct federal control would be a step backward, undermining decades of efforts to achieve greater autonomy and democratic representation for the people of Washington D.C. The political motivations behind these efforts appear to be rooted in a desire to assert federal authority over a city that often aligns with Democratic policies, regardless of the impact on its residents.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.