For the time being, President Donald Trump has suspended an executive order that would have allowed the federal government to seize control of Washington, D.C.
Trump’s decision coincides with District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser’s apparent political moderation in recent weeks, which includes announcing that the district will remove the Black Lives Matter mural across from the White House and clear out homeless encampments, as well as removing information about being a sanctuary city from its website.
“Mayor Bowser is cleaning up D.C. because of President Trump,” a White House official told the Washington Examiner Friday.
Bowser’s office did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment, but the mayor has dismissed claims that the Black Lives Matter Plaza development was motivated by Trump.
“We have long considered Black Lives Matter Plaza’s evolution and the plaza will be part of D.C.’s America 250 mural project,” according to a statement she issued.
During a press conference earlier this week, Bowser mentioned a phone call she received from the White House about a homeless encampment near the State Department that was demolished on Friday.
“I replied, ‘Thank you for the notice. “We will take care of it,” she assured reporters. “They are not ordering us to do anything.”
Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt applauded the clearing of the homeless encampment after the president announced it on social media.
“We have notified the Mayor of Washington, D.C., that she must clean up all of the unsightly homeless encampments in the City, specifically including the ones outside of the State Department, and near the White House,” wrote President Trump on Twitter. “If she is not capable of doing so, we will be forced to do it for her!”
The president added, “Washington, D.C., must become CLEAN and SAFE!” We want to once again be proud of our Great Capital. Thank you, Mayor Bowser, for your efforts on behalf of the people of our country. Hopefully, you will succeed!”
It is unclear what Bowser can do to avoid the executive order. But one thing is certain: if signed, the executive order will further complicate the relationship between Washington’s mayor-council government and the federal legislature that calls the nation’s capital home, a dynamic that has long irritated members of Congress who live in the district part-time, especially when crime rates are high and student educational outcomes are low.
Last month, D.C. government employees told the Washington Examiner that they expected Trump to sign the executive order shortly before being questioned about the possibility of a federal takeover on Air Force One en route to the White House after a weekend at Mar-a-Lago.
“I think that we should govern the District of Columbia,” Trump told reporters. “I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it absolutely flawless … and I think we should take over Washington, D.C.”
DC vs. federal government
However, because Washington’s government is governed by Article One of the Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, any executive order would almost certainly require congressional approval and would be challenged in court.
Although Washington’s mayor and council have governed the district since 1973, Congress has the authority to review and repeal Washington’s laws and budget, as well as appoint its judges, despite the district’s lack of voting representation in the federal legislature.
Congress most recently exercised its right of review under then-President Joe Biden in 2023, the first time since 1991, over a crime bill that would have reduced criminal penalties for murders, armed robberies, armed home invasions, carjackings, and sexual assault offenses amid an increase in incidents.
Washington’s home rule status and the prospect of statehood have both enticed and irritated lawmakers in Congress, particularly when Republicans are or have been in the majority.
Republicans have previously expressed dissatisfaction with the district’s policy stance against school vouchers, with the GOP repeatedly attempting to expand programs before Democrats did the opposite.
Supporters of D.C. statehood argue that the district deserves voting representation in Congress and self-determination. Meanwhile, critics of statehood argue that it is a Democratic power play, given that more than 90% of district voters voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris last year, and a Democrat would easily win the district’s hypothetical two Senate seats.
Marion Barry and the last federal intervention
The last time the federal government took control of Washington was in 1995, when then-President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-backed District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act into law in response to then-Mayor Marion Barry.
That legislation established the District of Columbia Financial Control Board, which oversaw the district’s finances until 2001, when it balanced four consecutive budgets.
In 1979, Barry became the first civil rights activist to be elected mayor of a major city, bringing him national prominence. While attempting to address Washington’s budget and service delivery issues, unemployment and crime rates rose.
His administration was plagued by scandals, ranging from embezzlement to allegations of Barry’s substance abuse and womanizing.
His third term was abruptly ended in 1991, when he was videotaped smoking crack cocaine during an FBI and D.C. police sting operation in 1990 and arrested on drug charges, serving six months in federal prison.
However, Barry’s popularity remained high, and he was reelected from 1995 to 1999 despite budget and service delivery issues.
Barry urged Congress to assume responsibilities traditionally held by state governments, resulting in Clinton and Republicans’ District of Columbia Financial Control Board. Barry’s disagreements with the board led to the board revoking his authority over nine agencies.
Bowser has been repeatedly pressed about Trump’s potential executive order, which she has dismissed as a “unnecessary distraction,” though she has admitted to taking the matter seriously.
Bowser has worked to improve her relationship with Trump in his second administration, after the two publicly disagreed during his first, most notably during the 2020 racial justice protests and the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.
To that end, Bowser met with Trump in December and emphasized how they share similar priorities for the district, such as encouraging government employees to return to work.
Because of Bowser’s close relationship with Trump, the president has declined to sign the executive order for the time being. Like his tariffs, Trump is using the threat of the order as a negotiating tactic.
“It makes people in our community anxious,” Bowser told reporters following Trump’s initial remarks about Air Force One. “As I have said since President Trump was elected, we want to work on shared priorities with him.”
Trump’s executive order has some supporters, including former Senate Judiciary Committee chief counsel for nominations Mike Davis, who ran for attorney general before the president nominated and confirmed Pam Bondi.
“Our country’s capital belongs to all Americans. Congress has a constitutional obligation to control DC. The DC Home Rule Act of 1973 is unconstitutional. We allowed a bunch of local idiots to destroy our nation’s capital. “Make DC great again,” Davis wrote.
But for Center for American Progress senior communications adviser Colin Seeberger, Trump is not making D.C. great again “by eliminating the jobs of thousands of district residents and freezing or working to gut programs that combat homelessness, prevent crime, and help people afford healthcare and food.”
“The people who should govern the district are those who live there, know the community, and can be held democratically accountable for the decisions they make — not a country clubber from Palm Beach,” Seeberger told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday.
The executive order also has its conservative critics, including American Enterprise Institute domestic policy studies senior fellow Howard Husock.
“In general, American government best follows the principle of subsidiarity — when the level of government closest to the voters runs the show,” Husock told the Washington Examiner. “The shortcomings of D.C. government are frustrating but not a reason to wrest control of it from its residents and taxpayers.”
