Ever since President Trump surged federal agents into D.C. last August, city lawmakers have struggled with how to respond. They have limited legislative power to control what federal agents do, and have been hesitant to press too hard – even on the Metropolitan Police Department – for fear of angering the president, who could turn the screws on the city even harder.
But this week, the D.C. Council took small steps toward oversight of federal agents who continue to patrol alongside MPD officers, passing two bills that proponents hope will shed light on who these agents are and what’s happening when they use deadly force against residents.
A bill from Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto will require that D.C. release body-camera footage from MPD officers who are on patrol with federal agents who shoot or use serious force. (It is retroactive to August 2025, so it would include any incidents that occurred after that.) The second bill, from At-Large Councilmember Robert White, will require that the police department collect names and other identifying information of federal agents when they make arrests while on patrol with local officers.
Both measures stem from at least three incidents where federal agents fired their guns at residents, with little clarity after the fact about what happened. Under existing city law, if a D.C. police officer shoots a weapon, the related body-camera footage must be made public within five days. The council’s new emergency bill extends that to cases when they are on the scene of a federal agent using serious force.
“We have heard from thousands of constituents… demanding answers and transparency on District coordination with federal agencies. Many times we can’t answer those questions because we’re not being informed,” said Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George. “The federal administration is keeping the council and the government in the dark… but that doesn’t mean we should be part of the obfuscation.”
While the council was unanimous in approving the bills, Mayor Muriel Bowser again struck a more cautious tone, urging lawmakers to instead leave it to Congress to legislate whether federal agents should have to wear body cameras of their own. But that argument fell flat in the council; lawmakers pointed out that MPD already uses body cameras, and this would merely expand existing law to allow for more footage to be made public.
Interim Police Chief Jeffery Carroll expressed concerns with the second bill, which tasks MPD officers with collecting names and other identifying information from federal agents they patrol with. He told lawmakers at a recent oversight hearing that it would be a logistical hassle for MPD officers working crime scenes.
“It’s actually a very small step,” said At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson about that particular argument. “To say, ‘What is your name? Who was there?’ But I definitely believe it’s a step forward.”
The underlying arguments also boiled down to the ongoing fear that the council will be provoking congressional Republicans into retaliating against the city. (They already have proposed a bill that would repeal D.C.’s existing law requiring the disclosure of body-camera footage when an MPD officer shoots someone.)
But Chairman Phil Mendelson pushed back.
“The issue here is one of principle. The principle is what is best for public safety, and that’s accountability,” he said. “That’s more important than being concerned that we may be pushed back and made an example of by folks who don’t live in this city.”
The emergency bills head to Bowser for her signature or veto; if they become law, they will remain in effect for 90 days. Pinto says permanent versions of the bills will also be considered.
The fight against foie gras moves forward, while a rent freeze stalls
If you’ve recently been mobbed by energetic campaign volunteers asking you to sign a petition to get a candidate on the ballot for the June 16 primary, be prepared: You may soon be asked for your signature again.
A proposed ballot initiative that would ban the sale or production of foie gras in D.C. took a small but significant step forward this week, when the D.C. Board of Elections signed off on its wording. That means that, within a month, the proponents of the initiative – a national animal rights group – could hit D.C.’s streets looking to collect the roughly 25,000 signatures they’ll need to get the measure on the November ballot.
A second ballot initiative also advanced this week. If approved by voters, it would increase D.C.’s minimum wage to $25 by 2029 (it is currently $17.95 and rises with inflation each year) and fully phase out the city’s tipped wage by 2031. After an initial hiccup earlier this year, the elections board said that the proposed initiative can now legally appear on the ballot. It still has a few procedural hurdles to overcome before it can begin the challenging process of collecting signatures from voters. But should proponents succeed, it will represent the first time D.C. voters are asked to weigh in on the minimum wage and the third time in a decade they’re asked whether the city should have a separate tipped wage or not.
A third proposed initiative – which would impose a two-year rent freeze in D.C. and change income thresholds for affordable housing – is facing a more rocky path. While the D.C. attorney general says the measure can legally appear on the ballot, this week organizations representing realtors, builders, and building owners raised a host of new legal concerns arguing that the initiative is unconstitutional. The claims seemed to catch the elections board off guard; it decided to delay any final decision and instead asked proponents and opponents to submit new legal briefs. The move may push the initiative past the point where it could realistically appear on the November ballot.
One last ballot initiative looks like it’s already run out of time. That effort looked to abandon daylight saving time in D.C.. (Coincidentally, remember to spring forward the clocks this weekend!) But the proponent never got around to collecting any signatures, and the six-month window they had to do so ends this month.
How you choose to wipe your butt may soon be a public policy debate
If you think politicians should stay out of the bedroom, how about the bathroom?
This week, At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson introduced a bill that would impose a 15% sales tax on most disposable wipes, more than double the city’s going levy on purchases. (Fear not, parents: Baby wipes are exempted.) Her legislation would also fully exempt bidets from sales tax to encourage their use instead.
Henderson says the issue isn’t about how people choose to wipe, but what happens if and when those disposable wipes are flushed down the toilet. Most wipes, even those marketed as flushable, take longer to break down in sewage systems, and often create significant clogs that can damage pipes.
She points to an incident in February when pumps being used to divert sewage around the collapsed portion of a large pipe in Maryland were clogged by wipes, leading to additional sewage overflow into the Potomac River. Over the last week, Henderson has been walking around the Wilson Building with a large jar full of water and a disposable wipe to make a point: it takes a while for them to disintegrate, much longer than traditional toilet paper.
If this all sounds a touch quixotic, just know that this isn’t D.C.’s first salvo in the Great War on Wipes. A decade ago, the council passed a bill that would have limited when wipes can be marketed as flushable in D.C., but the legislation was eventually struck down for being unconstitutional. More recently, D.C. got involved in a class-action lawsuit against manufacturers; the result is that companies making wipes will soon have to ensure they break down more easily in water, and will have to more clearly label wipes that definitely shouldn’t be flushed.
Henderson says the additional revenue from her increased sales tax on wipes would go to D.C. Water’s efforts to upgrade the city and region’s sewage pipes. And the tax exemption on bidets would incentivize residents to buy them; her office says they are “sustainable and provide a targeted, low-cost, and responsible alternative” to wipes.
Serious as this debate really is (many utilities, D.C. Water included, really don’t like disposable wipes), Henderson understands that there’s humor here, too. The bill is called the Consumer Levies on Obstructive Garbage Act – or the CLOG Act.
Martin is a longtime reporter and editor in D.C. He formerly worked for WAMU 88.5 and DCist.com, and has contributed to the Washington City Paper and other publications. He's been in D.C. for 25 years, and tries to ride his bike everywhere he can.
With your help, we pursue stories that hold leaders to account, demystify opaque city and civic processes, and celebrate the idiosyncrasies that make us proud to call D.C. home. Put simply, our mission is to make it easier — and more fun — to live in the District. Our members help keep local news free and independent for all:
