Federal Takeover: The Quickest Way to Kill a City’s Soul

The pitch always sounds the same.

The city’s out of control. Crime is rampant. The locals can’t govern themselves.

Send in the feds, clean it up, make it safe.

It’s a tempting story for anyone looking to score political points. But when a city loses local control to Washington, the results are rarely what’s promised. Residents aren’t just losing a mayor or a council — they’re losing their voice in how their streets are policed, how their neighborhoods are funded, and how their communities are shaped. Decisions are suddenly made by people who don’t live there, don’t ride the same buses, and don’t have to deal with the fallout.

⸻

one size fits all

Once a city is federalized, policy becomes a one-size-fits-all operation. The nuances between neighborhoods vanish. A downtown corridor and a struggling residential block are treated with the same playbook because the goal shifts from problem-solving to optics. National political agendas replace local priorities, and leadership becomes a revolving door of appointees who answer to the president or a congressional committee — not to the people living under their authority.

⸻

civil liberties in danger

Federal control also opens the door to a more heavy-handed approach to public safety. Federal law enforcement is trained for national security, not community engagement. Protests get treated like threats. Surveillance expands. Civil liberties become easier to sidestep in the name of security. And while federal takeovers often produce an initial burst of visible enforcement — more patrols, more arrests — they rarely address the root causes of crime. Housing instability, poverty, and underfunded schools are left to fester, waiting for the day the feds pack up and leave.

⸻

before home rule

And we’ve seen this movie before.

From 1874 to 1973, Washington, D.C. was run directly by Congress and the president. There was no elected mayor, no city council, and no voting representation in Congress. The city was managed first by a presidentially appointed Board of Commissioners and later by a mayor-commissioner and council — all positions filled without a single ballot cast by residents. Budgets were written in Capitol Hill committee rooms, where D.C.’s needs were often an afterthought. Roads crumbled, public schools languished, sanitation services fell behind, and public housing projects decayed for decades.

Federal appointments often went to political allies instead of people qualified to run a city. Contracts were handed out based on connections rather than competence. By the 1950s, D.C. had become a majority-Black city, yet its Black residents had no control over the policing, education, or housing policies that shaped their daily lives. Police were accountable to federal overseers, not the communities they patrolled, and heavy-handed crackdowns deepened the divide between law enforcement and residents.

By the late 1960s, frustration had reached a boiling point. After decades of protest and organizing, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973, allowing residents to elect their own mayor and council for the first time in a century. It wasn’t full autonomy — Congress still retained veto power over local laws — but it was a significant shift toward self-governance.

⸻

bottom line

Federalization strips a city of its democracy and replaces it with distant oversight. It prioritizes political theater over local problem-solving and makes communities answer to decision-makers who don’t have to live with the consequences. The history of D.C. under federal control is more than a cautionary tale — it’s proof that this approach doesn’t just fail, it leaves lasting damage.

Stay safe and Stay curious.