‘We Will Take Over The Horribly Run Capital’: Trump's Potential Return Alarms Local DC Community
The upcoming administration will not only transform the federal workforce but will also have an impact on the lives of all residents within the district.
TroibNews 
Donald Trump’s victory heralds significant changes for Washington, D.C., as well as the capital city itself.
After years of believing they were sheltered within a blue bubble, residents in the metropolis that houses the federal government may soon face substantial economic disruptions, professional challenges, and alterations to everything from city budgets to municipal abortion laws and local school curriculums — all stemming from the recent national election.
This shift marks a notable departure from tradition, with potentially profound personal consequences for ordinary citizens of the capital and those within its elite circles.
While candidates have often promised to reshape “Washington,” the everyday lives of D.C. residents typically remain stable through different administrations. The persistent economic growth that has solidified the capital region's status as a bastion of liberalism began under Ronald Reagan and continued despite fluctuating political tides.
However, those who dedicate their careers to governmental roles, policy research, or lobbying could soon discover that their personal lives are more intertwined with politics than they had previously thought. Trump’s second term is set to introduce targeted plans for overhauling the bureaucracy, express dissatisfaction with local governance, and exert considerable authority over contentious issues like abortion rights — elements absent during his first term in 2017. Conversations throughout D.C. this week revealed a stark realization among its typically composed residents.
Let’s consider housing first. Washington has long operated under the assumption of being recession-resistant, largely due to government employment and federal contracts. Trump's intentions to reclassify and potentially terminate tens of thousands of federal jobs, alongside plans to relocate many workers to other states, could equate to numerous factory closures on a civic scale.
As many local residents have their wealth heavily invested in the region’s skyrocketing real estate, these hypothetical factory closures could create ripple effects even for those maintaining secure employment. When many neighbors experience job loss, property values inevitably take a hit.
Employment conditions could also see a significant overhaul. Trump’s initiatives to dismantle civil service protections for segments of the federal workforce — alongside related actions from groups like the Heritage Foundation that aim to scrutinize bureaucrats' emails to root out those deemed insufficiently loyal — indicate a radical shift from a culture that has historically emphasized impartial expertise.
While skepticism regarding federal careerists is commonplace, the prospect of employees facing dismissal for political reasons represents a monumental change. The possibility of a system that allows for mass firings of non-political employees is unprecedented, especially since individuals who have devoted their careers to public service have long accepted the trade-off of stable employment in exchange for potentially lower compensation compared to the private sector.
The dissolution of this understanding would not only impact public policy but would also redefine the nature of work for countless individuals in and around Washington.
Such significant changes are likely to incite political and legal battles. On a smaller scale, a return to a Trump administration could disrupt the expectations federal employees have developed over the past five years, by imposing a stricter work-from-home policy for the 200,000 federal positions situated in the District. This longstanding Republican agenda could align with the city administration’s push for a return to in-office work to support downtown businesses, while still representing an immediate adjustment for federal workers.
The most unsettling potential shifts, however, could emerge concerning the capital's local laws. Congress maintains the authority to legislate city matters as established by the Nixon-era bill that created the city government. Historically, this power has led to sporadic grandstanding on transformative issues, but it has rarely caused radical changes within a city that mirrors the governance style of other liberal regions. Few federal lawmakers desire to involve themselves in mundane city matters such as gas-stove regulations.
However, this dynamic might shift under a president with maximal executive ambitions. Trump’s hostility toward D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, notably displayed after she installed the “Black Lives Matter” mural across from the White House in 2020, suggests he may be inclined to intervene in local governance. “We will take over the horribly run capital of our nation,” Trump asserted during a campaign rally. “We’re going to take it away from the mayor. And again, that doesn’t make me popular there, but I have to say it.”
Such animosity could motivate Trump supporters to meddle in areas historically left to local authorities. The contentious issue of abortion now has local implications in light of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling.
On the campaign trail, Trump asserted that abortion decisions should rest with state governments — a stance his campaign extended to include D.C. But many conservatives in Congress consider the capital’s government to be legitimate only with congressional sanction. Even President Obama once agreed to prohibit local tax funding for D.C. abortions during a standoff with Congress. It is conceivable that Trump would support significant restrictions favored by his party members, a prospect unsettling for pro-choice advocates, given that the District currently upholds some of the nation’s most liberal late-term abortion policies.
Yet conservative aspirations for altering local Washington extend beyond high-profile topics. One segment of the Project 2025 blueprint indicates a desire for the president to leverage authority over D.C. schools to ban critical race theory and regulate the use of “non-biological” pronouns. Although the president’s unilateral authority over D.C. education is debatable, the depth of the policy initiative signals a conservative commitment to exert control over cultural matters.
After years of feeling insulated from the far-right's culture wars, residents of liberal D.C. may soon find themselves, or their children, uniquely vulnerable, as their locality lacks a fully empowered legislature or school board to mediate between citizens and federal authority.
Despite Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025, the fact that Democrats engaged its policy suggestions in recent campaigns — and ultimately lost — inadvertently lends it some credibility and reflects where conservative policy discussions currently stand.
Many other conservative efforts to instigate ideological change through local legislation have been thwarted in recent years by either the Democratic-controlled Senate or White House. Initiatives include prohibiting the District from banning right turns on red or utilizing traffic cameras for enforcement. There was also bipartisan opposition to a proposed criminal code revision deemed overly lenient.
Legislating for D.C. is often simpler than imposing federal laws on actual states. The president’s proposal to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to oversee health may not lead to significant changes like removing fluoride from most water supplies — where local governance prevails — but Washington lacks such protections. As demonstrated by both Republican and Democratic administrations, it has proven straightforward to reward political allies with legislative changes.
The president can also wield considerable power over the District without Congressional assistance. Under home rule, the president appoints a U.S. Attorney to act as the local District Attorney, granting them the authority to prosecute offenses according to the administration's directives. Federal law also provides the president the capacity to take command of local police forces — a move that prior presidents did not undertake. However, given Trump’s previous suggestions of deploying the military to confront protesters and his sharp critiques of Bowser, this scenario isn’t entirely implausible.
Bowser, who expressed her congratulations to Trump and her intent to collaborate with the upcoming administration, refrained from sharing specifics about her strategies for defending home rule.
Indications of how Trump might wield authority over the less controversial aspects of Washington are already emerging. Local regulations delegate the approval of new construction projects to a presidentially appointed body known as the Commission of Fine Arts. Traditionally, this commission has prioritized deference to top architects, granting approval to projects regardless of the presidential administration.
Yet, building designs have become increasingly politicized: During Trump’s initial term, the commission was led by conservative architecture critic Justin Shubow, who advocates for classical aesthetics over modernist designs. Shubow and the Trump-appointed commissioners were dismissed shortly after Biden’s inauguration. A return to Trump’s leadership could drastically alter the architectural landscape — extending beyond governmental structures.
All of these possibilities hinge on the assumption that the existing legal framework governing the capital will persist. Recently, several Trump allies have advanced legislation aimed at dismantling local democracy, reverting to a model used before 1973 when a trio of federal appointees managed the city. Under that regime, there were no municipal elections.
Would the revocation of home rule actually occur? I remain skeptical. As mayors universally understand, managing infrastructure and education is often thankless labor. It’s considerably simpler to allow local entities to address community concerns.
Nonetheless, envisioning a Republican trifecta in the current political climate makes it challenging to believe the existing norms of engagement will remain intact.
As a result, those entrenched in the political machinery — the Hill staffer seeking an abortion; the journalist with a child in D.C. public schools; the lobbyist aiming to sell her home profitably — might soon find themselves caught in the unpredictable currents of election outcomes, experiencing political turbulence in unprecedented ways.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
After years of believing they were sheltered within a blue bubble, residents in the metropolis that houses the federal government may soon face substantial economic disruptions, professional challenges, and alterations to everything from city budgets to municipal abortion laws and local school curriculums — all stemming from the recent national election.
This shift marks a notable departure from tradition, with potentially profound personal consequences for ordinary citizens of the capital and those within its elite circles.
While candidates have often promised to reshape “Washington,” the everyday lives of D.C. residents typically remain stable through different administrations. The persistent economic growth that has solidified the capital region's status as a bastion of liberalism began under Ronald Reagan and continued despite fluctuating political tides.
However, those who dedicate their careers to governmental roles, policy research, or lobbying could soon discover that their personal lives are more intertwined with politics than they had previously thought. Trump’s second term is set to introduce targeted plans for overhauling the bureaucracy, express dissatisfaction with local governance, and exert considerable authority over contentious issues like abortion rights — elements absent during his first term in 2017. Conversations throughout D.C. this week revealed a stark realization among its typically composed residents.
Let’s consider housing first. Washington has long operated under the assumption of being recession-resistant, largely due to government employment and federal contracts. Trump's intentions to reclassify and potentially terminate tens of thousands of federal jobs, alongside plans to relocate many workers to other states, could equate to numerous factory closures on a civic scale.
As many local residents have their wealth heavily invested in the region’s skyrocketing real estate, these hypothetical factory closures could create ripple effects even for those maintaining secure employment. When many neighbors experience job loss, property values inevitably take a hit.
Employment conditions could also see a significant overhaul. Trump’s initiatives to dismantle civil service protections for segments of the federal workforce — alongside related actions from groups like the Heritage Foundation that aim to scrutinize bureaucrats' emails to root out those deemed insufficiently loyal — indicate a radical shift from a culture that has historically emphasized impartial expertise.
While skepticism regarding federal careerists is commonplace, the prospect of employees facing dismissal for political reasons represents a monumental change. The possibility of a system that allows for mass firings of non-political employees is unprecedented, especially since individuals who have devoted their careers to public service have long accepted the trade-off of stable employment in exchange for potentially lower compensation compared to the private sector.
The dissolution of this understanding would not only impact public policy but would also redefine the nature of work for countless individuals in and around Washington.
Such significant changes are likely to incite political and legal battles. On a smaller scale, a return to a Trump administration could disrupt the expectations federal employees have developed over the past five years, by imposing a stricter work-from-home policy for the 200,000 federal positions situated in the District. This longstanding Republican agenda could align with the city administration’s push for a return to in-office work to support downtown businesses, while still representing an immediate adjustment for federal workers.
The most unsettling potential shifts, however, could emerge concerning the capital's local laws. Congress maintains the authority to legislate city matters as established by the Nixon-era bill that created the city government. Historically, this power has led to sporadic grandstanding on transformative issues, but it has rarely caused radical changes within a city that mirrors the governance style of other liberal regions. Few federal lawmakers desire to involve themselves in mundane city matters such as gas-stove regulations.
However, this dynamic might shift under a president with maximal executive ambitions. Trump’s hostility toward D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, notably displayed after she installed the “Black Lives Matter” mural across from the White House in 2020, suggests he may be inclined to intervene in local governance. “We will take over the horribly run capital of our nation,” Trump asserted during a campaign rally. “We’re going to take it away from the mayor. And again, that doesn’t make me popular there, but I have to say it.”
Such animosity could motivate Trump supporters to meddle in areas historically left to local authorities. The contentious issue of abortion now has local implications in light of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling.
On the campaign trail, Trump asserted that abortion decisions should rest with state governments — a stance his campaign extended to include D.C. But many conservatives in Congress consider the capital’s government to be legitimate only with congressional sanction. Even President Obama once agreed to prohibit local tax funding for D.C. abortions during a standoff with Congress. It is conceivable that Trump would support significant restrictions favored by his party members, a prospect unsettling for pro-choice advocates, given that the District currently upholds some of the nation’s most liberal late-term abortion policies.
Yet conservative aspirations for altering local Washington extend beyond high-profile topics. One segment of the Project 2025 blueprint indicates a desire for the president to leverage authority over D.C. schools to ban critical race theory and regulate the use of “non-biological” pronouns. Although the president’s unilateral authority over D.C. education is debatable, the depth of the policy initiative signals a conservative commitment to exert control over cultural matters.
After years of feeling insulated from the far-right's culture wars, residents of liberal D.C. may soon find themselves, or their children, uniquely vulnerable, as their locality lacks a fully empowered legislature or school board to mediate between citizens and federal authority.
Despite Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025, the fact that Democrats engaged its policy suggestions in recent campaigns — and ultimately lost — inadvertently lends it some credibility and reflects where conservative policy discussions currently stand.
Many other conservative efforts to instigate ideological change through local legislation have been thwarted in recent years by either the Democratic-controlled Senate or White House. Initiatives include prohibiting the District from banning right turns on red or utilizing traffic cameras for enforcement. There was also bipartisan opposition to a proposed criminal code revision deemed overly lenient.
Legislating for D.C. is often simpler than imposing federal laws on actual states. The president’s proposal to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to oversee health may not lead to significant changes like removing fluoride from most water supplies — where local governance prevails — but Washington lacks such protections. As demonstrated by both Republican and Democratic administrations, it has proven straightforward to reward political allies with legislative changes.
The president can also wield considerable power over the District without Congressional assistance. Under home rule, the president appoints a U.S. Attorney to act as the local District Attorney, granting them the authority to prosecute offenses according to the administration's directives. Federal law also provides the president the capacity to take command of local police forces — a move that prior presidents did not undertake. However, given Trump’s previous suggestions of deploying the military to confront protesters and his sharp critiques of Bowser, this scenario isn’t entirely implausible.
Bowser, who expressed her congratulations to Trump and her intent to collaborate with the upcoming administration, refrained from sharing specifics about her strategies for defending home rule.
Indications of how Trump might wield authority over the less controversial aspects of Washington are already emerging. Local regulations delegate the approval of new construction projects to a presidentially appointed body known as the Commission of Fine Arts. Traditionally, this commission has prioritized deference to top architects, granting approval to projects regardless of the presidential administration.
Yet, building designs have become increasingly politicized: During Trump’s initial term, the commission was led by conservative architecture critic Justin Shubow, who advocates for classical aesthetics over modernist designs. Shubow and the Trump-appointed commissioners were dismissed shortly after Biden’s inauguration. A return to Trump’s leadership could drastically alter the architectural landscape — extending beyond governmental structures.
All of these possibilities hinge on the assumption that the existing legal framework governing the capital will persist. Recently, several Trump allies have advanced legislation aimed at dismantling local democracy, reverting to a model used before 1973 when a trio of federal appointees managed the city. Under that regime, there were no municipal elections.
Would the revocation of home rule actually occur? I remain skeptical. As mayors universally understand, managing infrastructure and education is often thankless labor. It’s considerably simpler to allow local entities to address community concerns.
Nonetheless, envisioning a Republican trifecta in the current political climate makes it challenging to believe the existing norms of engagement will remain intact.
As a result, those entrenched in the political machinery — the Hill staffer seeking an abortion; the journalist with a child in D.C. public schools; the lobbyist aiming to sell her home profitably — might soon find themselves caught in the unpredictable currents of election outcomes, experiencing political turbulence in unprecedented ways.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
