Congress is preparing to vote on a bill that promises to make Washington, D.C., “safe and beautiful.” The phrasing sounds simple, and on the surface, proposed legislation for a safer city doesn’t seem controversial, right? But for many D.C. residents and local advocates, the language raises a more pressing question: safe and beautiful for whom?

Introduced by Virginia GOP Rep. John McGuire last year, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act would establish a federal task force over local matters in the District—including public safety enforcement and immigration oversight. The proposal comes as a small part of a larger push by the Trump administration to expand authority over D.C., including directing tougher criminal penalties and increasing federal law enforcement presence in the city, as previously reported by The Washington Post.

Those who oppose the legislation say the issue is not just what the bill does, but what it represents. At its core, critics argue, the proposal reflects a continued effort by Trump and his allies to sideline the local officials whom residents have elected.

Melissa Wasser, senior policy counsel at the ACLU of D.C., said the bill follows a familiar pattern.

“This bill is yet another example of the Trump administration stepping in where it shouldn’t,” Wasser said in an exclusive interview with Blavity. “Creating a federal commission to micromanage D.C. is deeply inefficient. The federal government should not be spending time on local issues that impact D.C., especially with limited local involvement.”

She added that the proposal reflects a broader distrust of local leadership and could have direct consequences for residents.

“This demonstrates the Trump administration’s lack of trust in the local leaders whom D.C. residents have chosen,” Wasser said. “This bill will hurt the very communities it’s supposed to serve, particularly large communities of color.”

D.C. without autonomy

Washington, D.C.’s political structure has long left it vulnerable to federal intervention. Residents pay federal taxes and serve in the military, but they do not have voting representation in Congress. At the same time, Congress retains the authority to override local laws.

“This D.C. bill is yet another case of Republicans treating the people of D.C. like they are incapable of governing themselves,” Rep. Jim McGovern said during remarks on the legislation. “D.C. residents pay taxes. They serve their country. They do everything citizens are asked to do, and still, this Congress refuses to treat them like full citizens. It is outrageous.”

What federal ‘safety’ looks like

For local organizers, the concern is grounded in what expanded federal authority has already looked like in practice.

Clinique Chapman, chief executive officer of DC Justice Lab, said the bill would further empower federal law enforcement agencies that already operate in the District with virtually no accountability.

“Congress plans to advance a bill that would further empower unaccountable federal law enforcement agencies in D.C., giving a green light to their dangerous tactics that disproportionately target and put Black people in our community at real risk,” Chapman told Blavity.

Chapman also pushed back on the idea that increased federal presence has made the city safer, saying, “There is little evidence that the federal surge, in itself, has driven down crime rates. At a time when crime is declining and communities are calling for investments that actually reduce harm, Congress is pushing policies that move us backward.”

Who does the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act put at risk

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation warned that the consequences of the bill will not be evenly distributed. In a report analyzing the proposal, the foundation notes that Black residents make up over 40 percent of D.C.’s population and that the District is home to large immigrant communities, including residents from Ethiopia and Trinidad and Tobago.

According to the report, the bill would authorize a task force to monitor D.C.’s sanctuary city status and expand federal immigration enforcement. The report also raises concerns that the proposal could increase access to firearms without addressing the root causes of gun violence in a city where the vast majority of victims are Black.

The debate ultimately comes down to how “safety” is defined and who gets to define it. For many residents, expanded policing and federal oversight do not translate to protection. That combination often means more surveillance and more contact with systems that have historically caused harm.

If Congress votes “yes,” advocates say the impact will extend beyond any single policy change and will further validate a new system under Trump in which D.C. residents are governed by those they did not vote to represent them.

A city simply cannot be made “safe and beautiful” while its residents and local officials are denied control over how it is run.