DC council passes emergency legislation allowing more closed-door meetings
WASHINGTON () — The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to amend the Open Meetings Act, allowing for more closed-door meetings.
'There is constantly a complaint that the ability to have a conversation, just a conversation, is impeded. That's what this legislation gets to,' said Chairman Phil Mendelson (D).
Under the emergency legislation, the council will be allowed to have private meetings — without the required two business days' notice to the public — if the group is being briefed on a potential terrorist threat, public health threats or having a meeting with the mayor. No votes or official action can be taken.
'It doesn't close the meeting where action is taken. In fact, it preserves most of the existing law,' said Mendelson.
The legislation cites 'consequential, large-scale business and economic development…' like the arena deal with Monumental Sports and Entertainment, as an example of when a closed-door meeting may be necessary.
Expelled DC Councilmember Trayon White teases re-election campaign on social media
It also points to the need for privacy when strategizing on federal issues and interference, after Congress passed a recent spending bill that cut $1 billion from D.C.'s budget.
'This emergency legislation is particularly necessary in the current political climate to allow the council to be briefed as a body in a timely manner and to develop appropriate responses to rapidly unfolding issues,' said the legislation.
Still, some advocacy groups have come out in opposition to the changes.
'They work for the public, they work for the people of the District of Columbia,' said Bob Becker. 'And the people of D.C. have the right to know why they're doing things, not only what they're doing but why they're doing it.'
Becker is a member of the
The group sent a letter to the council criticizing the legislation. Becker worries it'll impact public trust and transparency.
'[The public] has a right to be confident that [the council isn't] giving in to special interests,' he said.
Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) introduced legislation to narrow the scope of what discussions can happen behind closed doors, limiting it to economic development negotiations or federal government relations. That amendment failed.
Because the legislation was passed on emergency, it will go into effect for 90 days without a public hearing.
A hearing on the permanent legislation is set for April 22.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far' Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, says he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president (Kevin Dietsch) (Kevin Dietsch/GETTY IMAGESvia AFP) Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X, in a message that was received favorably by the White House. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. ADVERTISEMENT Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." But after Musk's expression of regret, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was "appreciative," adding that "no efforts" had been made on a threat by Trump to end some of Musk's government contracts. "The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning, and he is appreciative of it," Leavitt said. ADVERTISEMENT According to the New York Times, Musk's message followed a phone call to Trump late on Monday night. Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles had also been working with Musk on how to broker a truce with Trump, the report said. - 'Wish him well' - In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days, with Musk describing the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. ADVERTISEMENT Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both already appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. bur-arp/aha
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth Fumbles Basic Question on Trump Deploying Marines to L.A.
Donald Trump ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles, and the defense secretary can't explain what authority enabled him to do so. In a terse exchange with Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin Wednesday, Pete Hegseth couldn't cite any portion of the Constitution that might allow the president to send troops to engage U.S. citizens. 'Just specifically, Mr. Secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active-duty Marines to California neighborhoods? What authority?' Baldwin asked. 'Senator, the president has constitutional authority in order to support—' Hegseth began, before Baldwin interjected, asking for a specific 'provision of the Constitution' that gave Trump such power. But Hegseth wasn't able to, instead asking Congress to offer their blind faith that the administration had pre-verified the constitutionality of such an action. 'I'd have to pull up the specific provision, but our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured in the order that we set out that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement,' Hegseth said. 'I'd like to know the specific constitutional statutory authority,' Baldwin pressed. 'The president made it clear that he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops. I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active-duty Marines being deployed to California neighborhoods.' Baldwin then asked Hegseth if he would follow up to provide the exact statute, to which he responded that there's 'plenty of precedent' in administering active duty troops to 'support law enforcement.' 'I'm not disputing that,' Baldwin said. 'I am just asking you to cite the authority under which the active duty Marines are being deployed to California.' Hegseth insisted that the appropriate statute was cited in the executive order, and then promised to follow up with Baldwin's office. Trump's decision to send hundreds of Marines to the City of Angels is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $134 million, defense officials revealed Tuesday. Their presence—per the White House—is intended to support ICE agents as they conduct mass deportation raids of the city while thousands of locals protest the president's agenda. But the order itself appears to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that forbids the government from using the military for law enforcement purposes. The White House could have bypassed the military doctrine by invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to utilize the military during periods of rebellion or mass civil unrest, but had not done so by the time of the order. (Trump has openly discussed leveraging the nineteenth-century law to enact his agenda since his inauguration.)
