Lesson from History: Congress Ultimately Does Not Want to Manage D.C.’s Minute Issues

By: Miriam Edelman

Understanding history is crucial to advocacy. Before D.C. gained its current limited home rule in the early 1970s, leaders who were appointed by the President governed Washington, D.C. In recent years, as has been discussed in multiple DCNOW’s blog pieces, some Members of Congress have introduced legislation in both Congressional chambers that would eliminate D.C.’s home rule. They do not say what the replacement would be, but an obvious replacement would be the same (or similar) type of government that ruled D.C. before home rule.

Senator Ankit Jain (D-DC) asked, “Do they want to become the municipal government for Washington DC?” This question was in DCNOW’s blog post, entitled “Speculations of Local D.C. Leaders about the Nation’s Capital’s Future.”

The answer to Jain’s question is most likely no. Much has changed since pre-1970s home rule. However, Members of Congress grew tired of handling small D.C. problems then. As the Roll Call reported in March 2025,

“Despite LBJ’s efforts, when Washington residents had local issues — potholes that needed filling, or trash that went uncollected — they’d call up members of Congress. Those added headaches were part of the reason they ceded control.”

Most likely, Members of Congress would again not want to completely run D.C. and handle hyperlocal issues if home rules ends.

Let’s avoid history repeating itself. Let’s finally make D.C. a state. D.C. statehood would ensure that the federal government cannot micromanage D.C. in ways that it has in recent years and that it cannot do to states.