Trump’s Call to Federalize Washington, D.C.: What It Means and Its Potential Impact
In a dramatic escalation of his long-standing criticism of Washington, D.C.’s governance, President Donald Trump has once again threatened to federalize the nation’s capital. This latest call comes in the wake of a brutal assault on Edward Coristine, a former staffer for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) nicknamed “Big Balls,” who was severely beaten while defending a woman from an attempted carjacking.
The incident has reignited debates about crime in D.C. and the role of the federal government in managing the district. But what does federalizing D.C. actually mean, how does it compare to the current system, and would it grant more power to the federal government?
The Incident That Sparked the Debate
On the night of August 4, 2025, Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former DOGE staffer, was violently attacked by a group of juveniles in Washington, D.C. According to reports, Coristine intervened to protect a woman from an attempted carjacking, only to be beaten himself, suffering a concussion and other injuries. The incident quickly gained national attention, with President Trump seizing on it as evidence of D.C.’s “out-of-control” crime problem.
Posting a graphic image of the bloodied Coristine on Truth Social, Trump declared, “If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City.” He further suggested prosecuting teenagers as young as 14 as adults and vowed to “run this City how it should be run.”
This is not the first time Trump has criticized D.C.’s leadership or floated the idea of federal intervention. During his 2024 campaign and earlier presidency, he frequently described the city as “filthy and crime-ridden.” However, the assault on Coristine—a figure tied to DOGE, a department once led by Trump ally Elon Musk—has added a personal edge to his rhetoric, making this latest threat feel more urgent.
What Does Federalizing D.C. Mean Compared to Now?
To understand Trump’s proposal, we first need to look at how Washington, D.C., is currently governed and how federalization would differ.
The Current System: Limited Home Rule
Washington, D.C., is not a state but a federal district, created in 1790 to serve as the nation’s capital. For much of its history, it was directly controlled by Congress and federal appointees. That changed in 1973 with the passage of the Home Rule Act, which gave D.C. limited self-governance. Under this system, residents elect a mayor and a 13-member city council to handle local affairs, such as passing laws, managing the budget, and overseeing the Metropolitan Police Department. However, Congress retains ultimate authority over D.C., as granted by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This means Congress can overrule local laws, impose budget restrictions, or intervene in other ways—powers it doesn’t have over states.
This hybrid setup creates a unique balance: D.C. has some autonomy, but it’s still subject to federal oversight. For instance, the president can deploy the D.C. National Guard without local approval, and Congress has blocked local initiatives, like a 2023 criminal code overhaul, when it disagrees with them. Day-to-day governance, though, rests with the mayor and council, giving residents a voice in their city’s affairs.
Federalizing D.C.: A Return to Direct Control
Federalizing D.C. would likely mean reversing or altering the Home Rule Act, stripping away much or all of the local government’s power and placing the district under direct federal control. This could involve Congress or the executive branch taking over key functions like law enforcement, budgeting, and public services—essentially reverting D.C. to its pre-1973 status, when it was run by federal appointees.
While Trump hasn’t outlined a specific plan, his comments suggest a focus on crime and public safety. Federalization could mean the federal government directly managing D.C.’s police force, setting stricter policies, and bypassing local leaders like Mayor Muriel Bowser. It might also involve reallocating D.C.’s budget to prioritize security over other local priorities, such as social programs or infrastructure.
Key Differences
-Local Autonomy: Under the current system, D.C.’s elected officials have significant control over local decisions, subject to congressional veto. Federalization would diminish or eliminate this, centralizing power in Washington’s federal institutions.
-Law Enforcement: Now, the Metropolitan Police Department answers to the mayor and council. Federalization could put it under federal authority, potentially aligning it with national priorities over local ones.
-Decision-Making: Today, D.C. residents influence their government through elections. A federalized D.C. might be governed by appointees or federal officials, reducing local input.
In short, federalizing D.C. would shift the balance sharply toward federal control, reducing the district’s ability to govern itself.
Will Federalizing D.C. Change Anything?
Federalizing D.C. could indeed change how the city operates, particularly in areas like crime and policing, but whether it would address underlying issues—like the assault on Coristine—is less clear.
Potential Changes
1. Policing and Crime: With federal control, D.C. could see a more aggressive law enforcement approach, reflecting Trump’s call for tougher penalties. More federal resources, such as funding or personnel, might bolster the police force, potentially reducing crime rates. However, this assumes crime is solely a policing issue, ignoring factors like poverty or education, which local leaders often prioritize.
2. Resource Allocation: Federal oversight could redirect D.C.’s budget toward security or infrastructure projects favored by the administration, possibly at the expense of local initiatives like affordable housing or community programs.
3. Governance Efficiency: Some argue that federal control could streamline decision-making, avoiding the friction between D.C.’s Democratic leadership and a Republican-led Congress. Yet, it could also create new bureaucratic challenges, as federal agencies take on roles they’re not designed for.
Limits to Change
Federalization wouldn’t automatically solve D.C.’s problems. Crime, for instance, is a complex issue tied to socioeconomic conditions, not just law enforcement. A federal takeover might offer a short-term crackdown but could neglect long-term solutions favored by local leaders. Moreover, it wouldn’t eliminate the political tensions that define D.C.’s current system—those would simply shift to debates within Congress or between federal officials and residents.
Does It Give More Power to the Federal Government?
Yes, federalizing D.C. would undeniably increase the federal government’s power over the district. Right now, Congress has constitutional authority over D.C. but has delegated much of it to local officials through the Home Rule Act. Federalization would reclaim that authority, allowing the federal government to directly manage the city’s affairs.
How Much More Power?
-Direct Control: The federal government could oversee everything from policing to zoning without local input, a level of control it currently exercises only indirectly through congressional oversight.
-Bypassing Local Democracy: By sidelining elected officials, federalization would concentrate decision-making in the hands of federal lawmakers or appointees, who aren’t accountable to D.C. voters.
-Precedent for Expansion: If successful in D.C., this could embolden federal interventions elsewhere, though states have stronger constitutional protections than the federal district.
However, the federal government already has significant sway over D.C. Congress can block laws, control parts of the budget, and manage federal properties that dominate the city. Federalization would formalize and expand this influence, but it’s not starting from scratch.
The Trade-Off
This power grab comes with risks. Critics argue it would disenfranchise D.C.’s 700,000 residents, who’ve fought for decades for greater self-governance (and even statehood). It could also spark legal challenges, as reversing home rule might face court battles over residents’ rights. Politically, it’s a tough sell: Democrats in Congress, who hold enough Senate seats to filibuster, would likely oppose it, seeing it as an attack on local democracy and D.C.’s majority-Black population.
Broader Implications and Likelihood
Beyond D.C., federalization could set a precedent. Trump has hinted at using federal power to “run” other troubled cities, like New York, though D.C.’s unique status makes it an easier target. Symbolically, taking over the capital could signal a shift toward centralized authority, raising questions about America’s commitment to local governance.
But is it likely? Not without a fight. Repealing the Home Rule Act requires congressional action, which faces steep hurdles in a divided government. Trump could use executive powers—like temporarily controlling D.C.’s police during emergencies—but a full takeover needs legislation. Local resistance, from Mayor Bowser to activists, would be fierce, and public opinion is split, with many residents wary of losing their voice.