Trump’s decision coincides with District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser‘s apparent political moderation in recent weeks, from announcing the district would be removing the Black Lives Matter mural across from the White House and clearing out homeless encampments, in addition to scrubbing 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 on Friday.
Bowser’s office did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner, but the mayor has dismissed speculation that the Black Lives Matter Plaza development was because of 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,” she wrote in a statement.
During a press conference earlier last week, Bowser addressed a telephone call she received from the White House about a homeless encampment near the State Department that was dismantled on Friday.
“I said, ‘Thanks for the notice. We’ll take care of it,’” she told reporters. “They’re not ordering us to do anything.”
Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt welcomed the homeless encampment’s clearing after the president posted about 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,” Trump wrote. “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 be proud of our Great Capital again. Thank you Mayor Bowser for your efforts on behalf of the Citizens of our Country. Hopefully you will be successful!”
It is unclear what else Bowser can do to avoid the executive order. But what is certain is that the executive order, if signed, would 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 irked members of Congress who live in the district part time, particularly when crime rates have been high and student educational outcomes have been low.
D.C. government employees told the Washington Examiner last month they expected Trump to sign the executive order imminently before he was asked about the prospect 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
But with Washington’s government governed by Article One of the Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, any executive order would likely require an act of Congress and be challenged in court.
Although Washington’s mayor and council have governed the district since 1973, Congress has the right to review and repeal Washington’s laws and budget and appoint its judges despite the district not having voting representation in the federal legislative body.
Congress most recently used its right of review under then-President Joe Biden in 2023, the first time it has done so 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 a rise in incidents.
Washington’s home rule status and the idea of statehood have simultaneously tantalized and antagonized lawmakers in Congress, especially when Republicans are or have been in the majority.
In the past, Republicans have expressed frustration with, for example, the district’s policy position against school vouchers, with the GOP repeatedly trying to expand programs before Democrats do the opposite.
Supporters of D.C. statehood contend that the district should have voting representation in Congress and self-determination. Meanwhile, critics of statehood claim it is a machination by Democrats for power, considering more than 90% of district voters cast a ballot for then-Vice President Kamala Harris last year, and a Democrat would easily win its hypothetical two Senate seats.
Marion Barry and the last federal intervention
The last time the federal government staged a takeover of Washington was in 1995, when then-President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-pushed District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act into law in response to then-Mayor Marion Barry. That measure created the District of Columbia Financial Control Board, which oversaw the district’s finances until 2001, after it balanced four consecutive budgets.
Barry achieved national prominence when he became the first civil rights activist elected as mayor of a major city in 1979. While attempting to address Washington’s budget and service delivery problems, unemployment and crime increased. His administration experienced scandals, from embezzlement to rumors of Barry’s substance use and womanizing. His third term dramatically ended in 1991 after 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.
But Barry’s popularity did not decrease, and he was reelected from 1995 to 1999, again encountering budget and service delivery problems. Barry urged Congress to take over responsibilities typically undertaken by state governments, resulting in Clinton and Republicans’ District of Columbia Financial Control Board. Barry would go on to have disagreements with the board, with the board revoking his authority over nine agencies.
Bowser has been repeatedly pressed about Trump’s possible executive order and has described it as an “unnecessary distraction,” though she admitted she takes the matter seriously.
Bowser has endeavored to improve her relationship with Trump in his second administration after the pair publicly disagreed during his first, most notably during the 2020 racial justice protests and over the Jan. 6 riot at Capitol Hill.
To that end, Bowser made a point of meeting with Trump last December and underscoring how they have similar priorities for the district, including encouraging government employees to return to work.
The strength of Bowser’s relationship with Trump has resulted in the president not signing the executive order, at least for now. Like his tariffs, Trump is relying on the threat of the order as a negotiation strategy.
“It makes people in our community anxious,” Bowser told reporters after Trump’s initial comments on Air Force One. “As I’ve said since President Trump was elected, we want to work on shared priorities with him.”
Trump’s executive order does have proponents, including former Senate Judiciary Committee chief counsel for nominations Mike Davis, who was a candidate for attorney general before the president nominated and confirmed Pam Bondi.
“Our nation’s capital belongs to all Americans. Congress has the constitutional duty to control DC. The DC Home Rule Act of 1973 is unconstitutional. We let a bunch of local idiots 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.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
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.”
