
DC Statehood is Going Nowhere. Is It Time to Think About Joining Maryland?
To protect the District of Columbia, it might be necessary to eliminate the District of Columbia — and merge it into the neighboring state of Maryland. It's an idea that many people think makes eminent practical sense in the name of running the city. Yet it's only in the air right now because of dramatic political reversals in the age of Donald Trump.
Exactly four years ago this week, the House of Representatives passed a bill to make D.C. America's 51st state, bringing the nation's capital tantalizingly close to a civil rights-era dream. Today, by contrast, the city is reduced to begging Congress for permission to spend its own money to balance the books. Mayor Muriel Bowser this week announced plans for drastic budget cuts.
It was just the latest humiliation. Since January, Trump has mused about a takeover and Hill Republicans have sought to end democratically elected local government altogether. Desperate to preserve some shred of home rule for their 700,000 citizens, D.C.'s leadership has placated the GOP on everything from ripping up a Black Lives Matter street mural to investigating anti-DOGE graffiti as a hate crime.
The fear is epic: When the president posted a bizarre AI video depicting a Trumpified Gaza, one city source told me, colleagues worried they'd be next.
In this environment, no one is talking seriously about statehood. Or, at least, they're not talking about 51st statehood. But the alarm over democracy and self-government has spurred a taboo-breaking and weirdly refreshing conversation about returning the 68-square-mile federal city to the 7th state: Maryland, which ceded the land to the fledgling United States back in 1790.
Retrocession, as the idea is called, would be a 21st-century version of something that happened in the 1840s, when the rest of the original District of Columbia rejoined Virginia. Today, those 30-odd square miles are known as Arlington and Alexandria. And their fully enfranchised residents never have to worry about culture warriors from Georgia or Utah screwing around with their traffic rules, abortion rights or school budgets.
For years, rejoining Maryland has been taboo among local die-hards. According to dogma dating back to the Civil Rights Movement, statehood is the one true way to rectify the mistreatment of a historically disenfranchised city — and snag a couple of Senate votes, too. But the current sense of crisis is such that one of the House's foremost Democratic D.C. supporters recently shocked the local establishment by pronouncing himself retrocession-friendly.
'I saw Mayor Bowser and I said if you guys want to think about coming back to Maryland for this period, you will definitely be safer in the Free State than you will be under the brutal thumb of MAGA colonialism,' Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, a D.C. native and longtime statehood proponent, told me last month. Coming from a progressive icon, it was a jarring departure.
How big a departure? Up to now, the people who championed retrocession were usually Republicans trying to slow the march to statehood. Hardline conservatives like former Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert embraced the idea. South Dakota Republican Dusty Johnson sponsored a retrocession bill in 2021, which not coincidentally was when the Democratic-led House OK'd statehood. Johnson's bill was given short shrift by Democrats, who derided it as evidence of how close they were to actually making D.C. a state.
Raskin said Bowser 'took [his suggestion] under advisement,' and said it's up to locals to decide their strategy. The mayor's office told me this week that she still thinks D.C. should become its own state. That keeps her in line with the overwhelming majority of District officials. The Trump-era atmosphere of capitulation doesn't yet include openly compromising on the eternal dream.
'I strongly oppose this approach,' D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said in a statement. 'Unlike retrocession, D.C. statehood has strong support. Retrocession has no constituency in Maryland or in D.C.'
That's too bad. Like Norton's preferred solution, retrocession would end the cycle of paralyzing budget impasses by ejecting attention-seeking national pols from hometown decision-making. But the idea might also be better than statehood when it comes to the day-to-day interests of those same residents once the feds are out of the picture.
It's about services, not symbolism: Would you rather live in a place that has to create a real university system or judiciary based on a population only a bit larger than tiny Vermont or Wyoming — or join a decently sized state that does that stuff pretty well already?
Don't take it from me. Take it from one D.C. local who's been quixotically banging the Maryland drum for ages: David Krucoff, a third-generation Washingtonian and onetime doomed GOP candidate for a city council seat.
Krucoff, who calls himself a 'centrist political reformer' and blasts his own party's meddling with local affairs, says the lack of support for a Maryland merger is a function of Democratic pathologies. At the national level, he thinks the party is obsessed with using D.C. as a vehicle to add a pair of Senate seats. And locally, he says, activists have been so focused on the symbolic prize that they shun a much more achievable alternative.
'The orthodoxy in the Democratic Party is about going for what they consider the great, as opposed to what many perceive as the good, and in the process getting nothing,' he said.
Not that Krucoff thinks merging with the state next door is just a second-best option. 'It's the only way we get economies of scale' that would save city taxpayers from having to stand up a prison system or fully replicate state functions.
'D.C. has about 90 agencies within its government, and most of them do functions that states do, as opposed to what cities do,' he said. 'Cities and counties mainly work on schools and public safety. So if we had to do less things that states do, we'd save some money. And of course Maryland would benefit from D.C. taxpayers, who are very well off, contributing to the Maryland economy.'
According to 2022 data from the D.C. Policy Center, per capita revenue in the District is about $30,000 a head, while local and state revenue in Maryland comes to just over $14,000 a head. Those numbers would change a bit if the capital stopped being federal territory, and Washington will always have much higher spending needs. But they still make the city a pretty attractive acquisition for a neighboring state.
To hear Krucoff tell it, a Vatican-like federal district would continue to exist after the merger, pared down to just the unpopulated monumental core around the National Mall. The rest of the city would follow the path 'Virginia D.C.' took nearly 180 years ago: First, Congress would pass enabling legislation. Then, District voters would OK it in a referendum. Finally, the state government would formally accept the new territory.
Just like that, he says, D.C. would become Douglass County, Maryland — named for the Maryland-born abolitionist who became one of Washington's most revered residents. No one in this new county would have to worry again about federal budget mishaps interrupting local garbage collection.
There are, of course, a few obstacles, even beyond the old establishment that has spent a generation imagining D.C. as the first urban state.
For one, there's Congress. Republican enthusiasm for getting D.C. off the federal books tends to wane as the danger of statehood recedes. Tellingly, none of the old enthusiasts for retrocession have introduced measures to do so this year, with a GOP trifecta in place.
For another, there's Maryland. State Republicans, who have a hard enough time carrying the deep-blue state, see adding a heavily Democratic city as a non-starter. But the idea also isn't very popular with Maryland Democrats. Baltimore-area pols, already concerned about the balance between their region and the Washington suburbs, worry that adding D.C. would further erode their power base. Just about any ambitious elected official who imagines becoming a governor or a speaker or a senator doesn't want to import a new source of competitors.
There's a reason political mergers — between countries, counties or even villages — are so rare. Everyone with power has something to lose. In the case of D.C., that would include large chunks of the District bureaucracy, who'd understandably worry that their state-level jobs would become redundant.
And it might even include me. I think what Raskin and Krucoff say makes a lot of sense. But as a D.C. native, I still cringe when I imagine myself driving around with Maryland tags. It's an irrational and stupid impulse — and just the sort of personal emotion that causes political movements to rise and fall.
'Maybe we can get a special carve-out,' Krucoff said. 'We can get a tag that says 'Douglass County' or something.' The initials would still be D.C.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Took A $113 Billion Hit Over Trump's DOGE Mission: Calls It 'Worth It'
A fan page of Vice President JD Vance asked Americans on social media whether they would thank Elon Musk after the Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO reportedly lost $113 billion while leading government efficiency efforts. Musk responded Tuesday with a simple 'Worth it' on X. What Happened: The fanpage wrote: 'Elon Musk lost 25% of his fortune, approximately $113 billion, while leading efforts to streamline the U.S. government. Are you willing to give Elon Musk a heartfelt 'thank you'? A. Hell yes B. No.' Bloomberg and Forbes data confirm Musk's net worth dropped approximately $113-121 billion during his 2025 Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) role. Tesla's stock price suffered as investors questioned Musk's divided attention between his companies and government work. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The wealth decline stems from multiple factors beyond Musk's political involvement. Market competition and potential Trump administration tariffs have pressured Tesla's valuation. Tesla stock represents Musk's primary wealth source, making the company's performance critical to his net worth. Why It Matters: The exchange comes amid escalating tensions between President Donald Trump and Musk. Trump has privately called Musk a 'big-time drug addict' in conversations with allies, according to The Washington Post. The feud intensified after Musk criticized Trump's budget legislation and suggested impeachment, while Trump threatened to cancel federal contracts with Musk's companies. The dispute has implications for Musk's SpaceX and Tesla operations, particularly regarding federal contracts. Trump withdrew NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman, Musk's preferred candidate, further straining relations between the billionaire and the administration. Read Next: Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. These five entrepreneurs are worth $223 billion – they all believe in one platform that offers a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends Photo courtesy: Joshua Sukoff / Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Elon Musk Took A $113 Billion Hit Over Trump's DOGE Mission: Calls It 'Worth It' originally appeared on


American Military News
37 minutes ago
- American Military News
Video: Trump gives major update on Iran nuclear deal negotiations
President Donald Trump warned in a recent interview that he is 'less confident' that the United States will reach a nuclear deal with Iran amid ongoing negotiations between his administration and the Iranian government. During an interview on Miranda Devine's 'Pod Force One' podcast, the 47th president was asked if he believed he could get Iran to make a nuclear deal, according to The New York Post. 'I don't know,' Trump said. 'I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more — less confident about it.' 'They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame, but I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago,' Trump added. 'Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made. I would have said a deal would be made.' While Trump acknowledged that he is 'less confident' about a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the president told Devine during the interview that there is 'nothing final' with regard to Iran accepting a deal with the United States. READ MORE: Iran orders ballistic missile materials from China for hundreds of missiles: Report Asked what would happen if Iran did not accept a nuclear deal, the president said. 'Well, if they don't make a deal, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. If they do make a deal, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon, too, you know? But they're not going to have a new nuclear weapon, so it's not going to matter from that standpoint.' 'But it would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying, it would be so much nicer to do it,' Trump added. 'But I don't think I see the same level of enthusiasm for them to make a deal. I think they would make a mistake, but we'll see. I guess time will tell.' President Trump tells @mirandadevine he doesn't think Iran wants to make a deal 'it would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying…But I don't think I see the same level of enthusiasm for them to make a deal. I think they would make a mistake" — Jim Hanson (@JimHansonDC) June 11, 2025 Last week, Iranian Supreme Leader Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected a nuclear deal with the United States that was proposed by the Trump administration. According to The Times of Israel, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh suggested during a press conference on Wednesday that Iran will target U.S. military bases in the Middle East if the nuclear negotiations are unsuccessful and the United States engages in military conflict with Iran. Nasirzadeh warned, 'Some officials on the other side threaten conflict if negotiations don't come to fruition. If a conflict is imposed on us… all US bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries.'