What Republican control of Washington could mean for D.C.

If D.C.’s local leaders spent most of Tuesday night watching the presidential returns come in, their focus on Wednesday has likely shifted to the District’s last hope of resistance in Washington: the U.S. House of Representatives.

Control of the lower house of Congress remains uncertain (Republicans are already expected to take the Senate), but the final outcome is incredibly consequential for D.C. With a GOP-led House and Senate and Donald Trump in the White House, Republicans would control virtually every lever of power in Washington, affording them the platform and tools to directly and aggressively intervene in D.C.’s local affairs – something they have recently shown an increased interest in doing.

That could even include considering whether to repeal home rule – the city’s ability to govern itself – which was granted by Congress in 1973, with the first elected mayor and D.C. Council taking office on Jan. 2, 1975. 

“I think there’s reason to be concerned,” says D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson (I-At-Large). “I think in this entire election they wrote down exactly what they are going to do. The question is whether they execute it for D.C.”

Since D.C. got home rule, Congress has maintained the power to step into the city’s local affairs when it so chooses. And it has done so in ways big and small: It was Congress that created the Control Board that helped steer D.C. out of insolvency in the 1990s and later passed a law instituting the charter school sector that now enrolls almost half the city’s schoolchildren, but it also once mandated when certain public pools should close and blocked the city’s taxicabs from using meters. 

Congress gets anywhere between 30 and 60 days to review any bills passed by the D.C. Council – with the option for both houses to vote to disapprove them. (That happened last year with a massive revision of the city’s criminal code.)

Republicans have also often used the federal budget process to focus on hot-button culture war issues in D.C., including  prohibiting the city from using any funds to subsidize abortions for low-income women and, since 2015, forbidding the council from legalizing sales of recreational marijuana. 

But those types of efforts have grown more varied and aggressive in recent years, hinting at what D.C. could expect should Republicans take full control of Washington in 2025. 

“The national Republicans have really amped up their attacks on D.C. the last few years,” says Ankit Jain, who on Tuesday was elected to a six-year term as one of D.C.’s shadow senators. Shadow senators don’t have votes in the Senate  but still serve as the city’s principal advocates there. 

“They see [the city] as a helpful political foe for them. They will wake up one day and say, ‘What, D.C. is doing this? I don’t like that.’”

That was clear in early 2023, when Congress – with Democratic support – overturned the city’s sweeping rewrite of its century-old criminal code. And it also seemed evident earlier this summer, when during discussions over the federal budget the House Appropriations Committee moved forward a bill that targeted a broad range of city programs and policies. It prohibited the use of traffic cameras in D.C. (there are almost 500 across the city), repealed a law that will ban right turns on red lights at all intersections by 2025, allowed anyone with a concealed carry permit from another state to freely carry a concealed gun in D.C. and on Metro, and prohibited the city from adopting California’s emission standards for cars. The bill also repealed D.C.’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide, another that allows non-citizens to vote in municipal elections, and a third that imposed police disciplinary reforms after George Floyd’s killing in 2020. (The bill never got a full House vote.)

Republicans have also expressed interest in using D.C. as a testing ground for policies they’d like to see implemented nationally. One elections-related bill debated in 2023 would have required photo ID to vote in D.C., banned same-day voter registration, and prohibited the city from automatically sending mail ballots to voters. And in its controversial Project 2025 plan, The Heritage Foundation recommends that Republicans more aggressively use their power to expand school choice in D.C. 

“I think that perhaps some of their interest sprouts from the fact that they haven’t been able to accomplish certain things on the federal level,” Henderson says. “The rhetoric has just intensified on micromanaging the affairs of jurisdictions where they can have control, and D.C. is right here.” Henderson also believes some grabs for control are simply the result of petty grievances from lawmakers who reside in the District: “When I see budget riders about no right turn on red or traffic cameras, some of that is a function of them living here.”

In limited cases, Republicans have even floated the idea of repealing home rule altogether. In July, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a close ally of Trump’s, introduced a bill that would do away with the city’s elected mayor and council, likely replacing them with the federally appointed commissioners that governed the city prior to 1973.

Nelson Rimensnyder, a local Republican who for decades worked in Congress on D.C.-related committees, doesn’t think such a repeal will come to pass: “There’s this talk that they want to return to an appointed commissioner system. That won’t happen. They don’t have the time. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

But other forms of congressional interference are on the table, Rimensnyder says. “I think they’re very concerned about crime and how that’s handled. They will continue to look into that,” he says.

Jain also notes that even though Democrats lost control of the Senate, some of the more controversial Republican proposals – like abolishing home rule – would likely still need to overcome a filibuster. And he cautions that the fate of the House remains unsettled, and Democrats could still reclaim it. 

But even if Democrats do manage to hold onto the House, an emboldened President Trump will still have the means to exercise direct influence over D.C. During the campaign he repeatedly spoke of using federal resources to improve public safety (he could deploy the National Guard or federalize MPD), beautify the city, and even attempt to “take over” D.C. He will also pick the next U.S. Attorney for D.C., the figure that is charged with prosecuting violent offenses.

Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration has been quietly gaming out all the possible scenarios, tasking Assistant City Administrator Chris Rodriguez with outlining how D.C. could prepare and respond. (Bowser’s office declined to make him available to speak about these discussions.) But some of those preparations may have to be more immediate than others. Should Congress actually prohibit D.C. from using traffic cameras, for one, it would create an almost instant budget deficit that the mayor would have to address.

It remains to be seen how Bowser will approach Trump in his second term. During his first, the mayor made a national name for herself by publicly pushing back against him. But she more recently has made quiet inroads with some congressional Republicans.

Rimensnyder thinks there may be chances for D.C. leaders to engage with Trump and Republicans in specific areas, including on Bowser’s long standing request that the RFK stadium campus be turned over to the city for redevelopment and a possible new football stadium. Similar conversations in the past have yielded positive outcomes for D.C. After Bowser repeatedly pushed Republicans on the issue, they said they would lift the existing prohibition on D.C. legalizing recreational marijuana sales. While that has yet to clear the House, it did make it out of the Appropriations Committee.  

“I think the mayor and [D.C. Council Chairman Phil] Mendelson should ask for a meeting with Trump, and I think he may be open to that,” Rimensnyder says.