jonetta rose barras: Can DC Council assert budget autonomy without igniting battles that jeopardize home rule?

“The District confronts daunting financial headwinds,” wrote Ward 3 DC Councilmember Matt Frumin in his Committee on Human Services report, which contained a number of recommended changes to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s $22 billion Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and Financial Plan.

“In FY24, the agencies under the Committee’s purview spent $1,127,458,612. Their combined proposed FY26 budgets are $920,992,102, which represents a 6.5 percent reduction from their $984,467,457 FY25 approved budgets,” continued Frumin, in one of the most sobering opening statements of the many markup reports that legislators approved in their various committees this week.

“It is not possible for any one Council committee to restore more than $63,000,000 in reductions. Additionally, reductions can only be restored by imposing other reductions,” added Frumin.

Maybe he should have repeated that statement to the folks shouting on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building or those sleeping in council offices. Often, elected officials fail to set honest and realistic expectations for residents about what a government can and can’t provide. Truth be told, politicians themselves may not have a firm grip on the appropriate parameters. 

Local leaders seemingly have lost sight of the precarious dynamic between the city and Congress. Frequently, as the council pushes forward, asserting DC’s fiscal and public policy independence, members have ignored the fact that the District remains under congressional authority and subject to the whims of representatives and senators looking for opportunities to impose their will. A wrong move can lead to the repeal of local laws, as we have seen over the past several years — even under former President Joe Biden — as well as the serious threat of a hostile takeover. 

Inside some budget decisions, particularly those by the Committee on Health, are signs of arrogance, recklessness or amnesia — perhaps all three. At-large Councilmember Christina Henderson appeared not to have adhered to Frumin’s sober approach when pushing for spending changes in the mayor’s budget in regards to Medicaid and the DC Health Care Alliance. If some of the decisions that she and her colleagues made at the committee level aren’t reversed by the full council, no one should be surprised when Congress moves, once again, to overturn an action by District elected officials.

In a war, you pick your battles and shrewdly consider how to win. Or as the old adage goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Figure it out without getting clawed.

The FY 2026 budget Bowser submitted to the council in late May was a juggling act. She introduced some new spending, mostly for certain economic growth goals, while grappling with a projected $1.2 billion revenue shortfall across the four-year financial plan, instigated by President Donald Trump’s termination of tens of thousands of federal workers. 

It seems unlikely that the next revenue projections from the city’s chief financial officer will show improvements in DC’s fiscal outlook when they come out early next week. Challenges facing the District are sure to increase after House and Senate Republicans resolve their differing reconciliation bills, which undoubtedly will include deep cuts in social program spending and enhanced work requirements for individuals receiving benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as TANF. 

Already, nearly two-thirds of the District’s local budget is spent on human services (21%), education (29%) and public safety and justice (13%). As Frumin correctly asserted, it is impossible to fully compensate for the adverse impact to the local economy caused by federal government actions or inaction — although DC officials could do a lot in that regard if they’d get serious about eliminating bloat throughout the local government. 

Consider that Bowser has a budget office even though there is the multimillion dollar, congressionally mandated Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Are both really needed? 

There are layers of lawyers in many agencies and a multitude of commissions that, in my opinion, result in the balkanization of District communities — the Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs; the Commission on Fathers, Men and Boys; the Commission for Women, which should not be confused with the Office of Women’s Policy and Initiatives and the Commission on Latino Community Development, related to but not synonymous with the Office on Latino Affairs.

Technically, there are two school systems, competing for a finite number of students and government funds; even with the duplication, however, they have yet to produce even one entirely equitable, high-quality public education infrastructure. That’s despite DC’s annual expenditure of $2.8 billion just on public education.

Council Chair Phil Mendelson recommended, among other things, plowing back into the charter school system money from two closures now underway with the end of the academic year. A better action, however, might have been to institute a moratorium and mandate a plan for aligning schools and academic programs.

Efforts to eliminate duplication and spur greater efficiency and effectiveness didn’t appear to be prime objectives during budget markups. In fact, Ward 2’s Brooke Pinto, chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, had initially backed the idea of merging the city’s two violence interruption programs — one in the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE), the other known as Cure the Streets located in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Neither has produced spectacular results, both have had employees embroiled in scandal, and both have spent tens of millions of dollars since their creation in 2018. 

Among other things, Pinto’s committee was set to recommend transferring Pathways, an ONSE program, to the Department of Employment Services while reducing the overall number of interrupters programs to six, placing those under the attorney general. ONSE would have ceased to exist.

However, she was forced to pull back that plan, acquiescing to Bowser, McDuffie and others who objected, choosing to continue the program under the mayor. The OAG’s Cure the Streets program currently lacks funding for FY 2026, but several councilmembers seem anxious to restore that. Translation: More of the same inefficiency and chaos.

The question everyone should be asking is this: Shouldn’t neighborhood safety be the chief mission of the DC Metropolitan Police Department?

Reading reports and listening to committee discussions, much of the budget process seemed like business as usual, replicating, with few exceptions, how the legislature functioned last year and the year before that — although that was before Trump’s return, when money flowed like water. Now as then, legislators shuffled money among committees, as if playing a game of Monopoly. The swaps were often to finance programs a member may favor or those that are favored by favored constituents or those that could benefit a representative’s ward or a ward crucial to an at-large member’s electoral prospects.

A budget isn’t just a fiscal document. It’s a campaign platform. 

Local politicians and wannabes are gearing up for next year’s primary elections. Bowser and DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb are up for reelection in 2026 — as are Mendelson, at-large members Anita Bonds, Henderson and McDuffie; Ward 1’s Brianne Nadeau; Ward 3’s Frumin; Ward 5’s Zachary Parker; and Ward 6’s Charles Allen. As independents, Henderson and McDuffie won’t run until the November general election; the others are all Democrats and will run in their party’s primary if they seek to remain in office.

In fairness, while I remain critical of the haphazard way councilmembers determine how best to use the public’s money, I do not mean to suggest that all their decisions are suspicious. For example, I think it made perfect sense for at-large Councilmember Robert White, chair of the Committee on Housing, to increase funding for the Home Purchase Assistance Program, and to recommend that 30% of the money allocated for the Housing Production Trust Fund be used to preserve existing affordable housing, which is more cost-efficient and clearly a top priority among DC residents.

Further, the entire city stands to benefit from the restoration by Frumin’s committee of nearly $6.5 million for the DC Public Library to continue current hours of operation while ensuring sufficient staffing at neighborhood branches. It also seemed smart to restore cost-of-living adjustments to TANF recipients. However, further delaying implementation of work requirements and eligibility deadlines that were long ago established under federal guidelines — another recommendation from Frumin’s committee — may not be a sharp move. By reversing the sanctions for one year and adding the COLAs, Frumin restored $7.5 million to the FY 2026 budget.

And, while Bonds lacked the courage to propose the elimination of certain boards and commissions, she did smartly recommend a review of them and an assessment of the Fair Elections law, which provides taxpayer funds for eligible candidates for political office in DC. However, she and her committee failed to restore funds for the new archives at UDC, although Bonds and others did express at least a vague desire to do so as budget deliberations continue.

The Health Committee made several important recommendations, including restoring $1.3 million for HIV/AIDS prevention and surveillance. The federal government had stripped grants from local organizations that provide such programs. 

Henderson’s committee also approved recommendations to increase the reimbursement rate for certain providers, including dentists. It enhanced funding for a host of behavioral and mental health issues; during the markup meeting, however, several members expressed concerns about the department operating those programs. “After three years of having this committee, my biggest frustration has been with [the Department of Behavioral Health],” said Henderson.

Those may be actions to celebrate, but there are others causing heartburn. For example, Henderson’s committee restored funding for a significant number of DC residents who have been receiving insurance through the DC Health Care Alliance, ignoring the rationale provided by the mayor and her team that the growth in the program was outpacing the city’s revenue. 

Henderson also dismissed concerns that many recipients may be undocumented; she increased spending designed to remove the every-six-months recertification requirement for youth and cover the cost of eliminating face-to-face recertification for adults. Many of these requirements have already been written into the reconciliation bill passed by the House and are expected to be included in the Senate version.

A skinning-the-cat move could have been to create a fund for uncompensated health care. Instead, Henderson, a former Hill staffer, has placed DC on a collision course with a Republican Congress eager to swallow the District and its home rule whole.

At least one member of the Health Committee seemed to recognize the path they have decided to take: “I think this is a strong report,” said Ward 5 Councilmember Parker.

“There is one elephant in the room; that is the federal government,” he continued. “And we don’t know what we don’t know — yet.”

Maybe we do.

jonetta rose barras is an author and DC-based freelance journalist, covering national and local issues. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.