Citizens Against Government Waste Names Mayor Muriel Bowser May 2025 Porker of the Month
Mayor Bowser is promising the team $1 billion in taxpayer dollars, but it is unclear where she will find it after the city's budget was just cut by $1 billion.
Share
On April 28, 2025, Mayor Bowser and the Commanders announced a deal that would bring the team back to Washington, D.C.'s Robert F. Kennedy stadium. The Commanders would contribute $2.7 billion toward the project, but the District would still be on the hook for $500 million in costs over four years and another $500 million for infrastructure improvements. Mayor Bowser promoted the deal as a major achievement, despite D.C.'s escalating housing prices, failing schools, and metro transit system approaching bankruptcy. Mayor Bowser is promising the team $1 billion in taxpayer dollars, but it is unclear where she will find it after the city's budget was just cut by $1 billion.
CAGW President Tom Schatz said, 'Mayor Bowser's announcement is yet another sweetheart stadium deal. What she is disguising as 'revitalization' for the area is instead money going straight into the owner's pocket. Mayor Bowser should be reducing spending and directing funds into areas of the city that need help, not gouging taxpayers to help fund a new stadium for a billionaire owner. For being completely callous and fumbling away taxpayer dollars, Mayor Bowser is an easy choice for May Porker of the Month.'
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. For more than two decades, Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers and government officials who have shown a blatant disregard for the taxpayers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
28 minutes ago
- Vox
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Why isn't D.C. a state? Trump's takeover reignites calls for statehood.
President Donald Trump's decision to place the D.C. police under direct federal control and deploy some 800 National Guard troops in the city has spurred calls once again to make D.C. a state, with Democratic leaders and advocates contending that statehood could have protected the District from Trump's interference and shielded the city government from his threats of a broader federal takeover. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), a longtime advocate for D.C. statehood, brought the issue to the forefront in a news conference Monday, calling Trump's actions 'unsettling and unprecedented.' 'We know that access to our democracy is tenuous,' Bowser said. 'This is why you have heard me and many, many Washingtonians before me, advocate for full statehood for the District of Columbia.' Advocates had their best chance in the decades-long fight for statehood in 2021, when the House passed a bill to make D.C. the 51st state and Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. But even then, the legislation never made it to a Senate vote. The GOP's current dominance in Washington makes the statehood movement even more of a long shot. Here's what to know about the unusual status of the nation's capital and its more than 700,000 residents. The framers of the Constitution mandated the creation of the District of Columbia — a seat of the federal government over which Congress would 'exercise exclusive legislation' — with the intention of creating a neutral place to conduct the business of the federal government during a time when the union between the former 13 colonies was still new. In making D.C. a district and not a state, the framers denied its residents many of the rights held by other Americans. They have no votes in Congress — they have a delegate in the House of Representatives who can participate in debates and committee work but cannot vote on legislation — and their local government has no control over the D.C. National Guard. D.C. residents got a voice in their local government in 1820, when Congress allowed White male landowners, and later all White men, to vote for mayor. In 1867, Black men were also granted the local vote, provoking a backlash. In 1874, Congress revoked home rule for everyone. Washingtonians secured the right to vote for president only via the 23rd amendment in 1961, and before the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act, unelected leaders appointed by the president ran the District. The Home Rule Act has its limits. Congress can still veto local legislation and budgets. And on Monday, Trump invoked Section 740 of the act, which gives the president the authority to take temporary control of the city's police force if he 'determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' 'Though we pay taxes — in fact, we pay more than most states, per capita — we're not a state,' Bowser said Monday. 'We don't control the D.C. National Guard. We don't have senators or full autonomy. Limited home rule gives the federal government the ability to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.' Creating a new state would require an act of Congress — something that has so far eluded proponents of statehood, despite decades of activism on the issue. The House voted on D.C. statehood in 1993, but the bill failed 277 to 153, with a large number of Democrats voting against it. However the issue gained momentum around 2020 when protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd led the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in D.C. despite opposition from Bowser. In June 2020, the House voted to declare D.C. the nation's 51st state for the first time since the establishment of the District of Columbia, with just a single Democrat voting against it. However the bill was not brought to the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate and was opposed by the White House. In 2021 it passed the House again, but also failed to progress, despite President Joe Biden supporting the issue. The Washington, D.C. Admission Act, championed by D.C.'s nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, proposed shrinking the federal government to a two-square-mile enclave including the White House, Capitol Hill, Supreme Court and other federal buildings that would remain under congressional control. The rest of D.C. would be known as the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, named for famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass. The bill also proposed elections for two senators and one state representative. The issue remains an important one for Democrats, tapping notions of equality and racial justice in a plurality Black-city, with supporters claiming it would right historical wrongs and ensure voters are properly represented. Norton (D) said in a statement last week that enacting her D.C. statehood bill was the 'only permanent remedy that will protect D.C.'s ability to govern itself.' 'D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and brown, are worthy and capable of governing themselves without interference from federal officials who are unaccountable to D.C.,' she said. However, Republicans have criticized efforts to establish new representatives as a power grab by Democrats struggling to advance their agenda. In May 2020, Trump said Republicans would be 'very, very stupid' to allow D.C. to become a state because the city's Democratic population would likely swell the party's ranks in Congress. 'No, thank you. That'll never happen,' he told the New York Post at the time. Critics also point to the city's size and say statehood could mean it has undue influence over the federal government. Proponents say that the city's 700,000 residents make it comparable to other states like Delaware, Alaska and Vermont and that D.C. residents pay more federal taxes than residents in 22 states. In January, Norton and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) announced they would introduce the statehood bill again, and Trump's recent deployment of the National Guard to D.C. has reinvigorated the debate. But with Republican control of the House, Senate and White House, the chances of a D.C. statehood bill passing are slim. . .
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
National Guard troops expected to be deployed Tuesday in DC
National Guard troops began arriving in Washington on Tuesday morning, a day after President Trump deployed some 800 members to the nation's capital to combat what he called out-of-control violent crime. The troops were seen arriving at the D.C. Armory, the National Guard's headquarters in the city, and are expected to be on the ground later in the day, a White House official told NewsNation, The Hill's sister network. Trump during a lengthy press conference Monday announced the deployment as well as a Justice Department takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). He claimed the city was in the midst of a crime emergency, even as violent crime in the city has fallen sharply following a post COVID-19 pandemic spike in 2023. 'I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, D.C., and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly,' he said. Notably, the president did not offer details as to how the Guard deployment and police takeover will tackle the causes of homelessness, drug abuse or violent crimes. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser later Monday called Trump's plan 'unsettling and unprecedented' and calmly pushed back on his claims of lawlessness, pointing to official statistics that show that crime in the city has been dropping steadily. House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) on Tuesday accused Trump of trying to create his own domestic police force. 'It's pretty clear the president wants his own domestic police force, and step-by-step he's trying to create it, and we should be deeply alarmed by that, regardless of how you feel about crime in Washington, D.C. or any other city,' Smith told CNN's News Central. It's unclear where the National Guard troops will be seen around the capital city and what their command-and-control will be, but the U.S. Army has said they will help with administrative and logistical tasks in addition to providing 'physical presence in support of law enforcement.' Only between 100 and 200 soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time, according to the Army. Trump last deployed the National Guard in California to crackdown on what he claimed were violent protests against immigration enforcement activities in Los Angeles in June. But the roughly 4,000 California troops — in addition to 700 Marines sent to protect buildings — largely stood around the city without much to do after protests mostly died down after the first week.
