This bill adds a new section to title 23, U.S. Code, directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a portion of federal highway apportionments to the District of Columbia unless the Mayor removes the phrase “Black Lives Matter” from the street symbolically designated as Black Lives Matter Plaza, redesignates that street as “Liberty Plaza,” and removes the phrase from all District websites, documents, and other materials. It gives the Mayor a short compliance window and ties enforcement to future apportionments.
The measure matters because it uses federal transportation funding as a blunt instrument to compel a local naming and speech decision. That linkage affects project financing and planning in the District, creates administrative compliance questions for the Department of Transportation, and raises immediate constitutional and policy tensions about conditional federal grants and compelled or prohibited speech by a local government.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new 23 U.S.C. provision that conditions part of the District’s federal-aid highway apportionment on the Mayor’s removal of the phrase “Black Lives Matter” from a named street and from District-controlled materials, and on renaming the street “Liberty Plaza.” The Secretary of Transportation must withhold funds for noncompliance.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the District of Columbia government, the Federal Highway Administration/Secretary of Transportation, and any contractors or capital projects that rely on federal-apportioned highway funds to the District. It also implicates political actors and organizations invested in the plaza’s name and messaging.
Why It Matters
It sets a precedent for conditioning infrastructure grants on local governments’ speech-related decisions and naming choices, changing how federal leverage over municipal policy could be exercised and challenged in court.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends chapter 1 of title 23 by adding a single new section that creates a compliance condition the District must meet to avoid a funding penalty. The statutory hook is federal highway apportionments: if the Mayor does not meet the bill’s specified actions, the Secretary must withhold a portion of funds otherwise apportioned to the District.
The provision defines compliance by reference to three actions the Mayor must take within a short period after enactment.
Those three actions are (1) remove the phrase “Black Lives Matter” from the specific street stretch that has been symbolically designated Black Lives Matter Plaza; (2) remove that phrase from “each website, document, and other material” under District jurisdiction; and (3) redesignate the street as “Liberty Plaza.” The bill does not elaborate definitions for “website,” “document,” or “other material,” nor does it specify how removal is to be verified, leaving operational questions about scope and proof of compliance.Enforcement is administered by the Secretary of Transportation through a withholding mechanism tied to the District’s highway apportionment. The statutory language directs an automatic funding reduction in years when the Mayor has not complied; it does not prescribe discretionary remedies, phased penalties, or alternative compliance processes.
The bill also inserts a clerical amendment in the chapter analysis to reflect the new section.Practically, the change would affect the flow of federal funds used for transportation projects in the District and would require the District to allocate administrative resources to implement the renaming and content removal across government properties and communications. Because the provision conditions federal highway money on a politically expressive act by a municipal actor, the text raises immediate questions about how the Department would determine compliance and about likely legal challenges that would focus on constitutional protections and statutory conditions for federal grants.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new 23 U.S.C. section (numbered §180) that conditions federal highway apportionments on a District naming and content decision.
It requires the Mayor to act within 60 days after enactment to remove the phrase and redesignate the street, a very short compliance window.
If the District has not complied, the Secretary must withhold 50 percent of the amount required to be apportioned to the District under 23 U.S.C. §104(b) on the first day of each fiscal year beginning after enactment in which noncompliance exists.
The targeted street segment is explicitly 16th Street NW between H Street NW and K Street NW — the block symbolically designated as Black Lives Matter Plaza.
The Mayor must also remove the phrase from “each website, document, and other material” under District jurisdiction and redesignate the street name to “Liberty Plaza.”.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds new 23 U.S.C. §180
The bill adds a single new statutory provision to chapter 1 that creates the compliance-and-penalty framework. This is the operative change: Congress uses the highway-aid chapter to place an express condition on funds distributed to the District. Because it sits in title 23, the provision ties into federal-aid highway apportionments rather than any other federal grants or local funding streams.
Withholding mechanism
Subdivision (a) directs the Secretary to withhold a specified share of future annual apportionments to the District if the Mayor has not complied. The statute sets the withholding amount (a percentage) and the timing (on the first day of each fiscal year beginning after enactment in which noncompliance exists). It leaves implementation details — for example, whether withheld funds are permanently forfeited, escrowed, or recoverable upon later compliance — unaddressed.
Scope of removal requirement
This paragraph requires removal of the phrase “Black Lives Matter” from both the identified street segment and from every District-controlled website, document, and other material. The provision uses broad language without definitions or carve-outs, which creates uncertainty about the universe of covered materials (archival records, third-party references, city maps, event signage, and translations). That breadth matters for compliance cost and for how the Secretary would assess completion.
Renaming obligation and statutory housekeeping
Paragraph (2) instructs the Mayor to redesignate the specified street segment as “Liberty Plaza.” The bill also updates the chapter analysis to list the new section. The renaming requirement is categorical — it does not distinguish between symbolic vs. legal renaming processes — and it therefore raises practical questions about whether a mere change to ceremonial signage satisfies the statutory command.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal lawmakers or political actors who oppose the Black Lives Matter designation — the bill gives them a direct federal mechanism to achieve a renaming without relying on local political processes.
- The Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration — the statute creates a clear statutory enforcement role, concentrating authority to impose financial penalties for noncompliance.
- Private entities and contractors aligned with renaming proponents — if the renaming proceeds, businesses that prefer different branding or event organizers may see fewer restrictions on using an alternate plaza name.
- Members of the public seeking a uniform federal standard for symbolic street names — the bill provides a single, if controversial, federal rule applicable to this named location.
Who Bears the Cost
- District of Columbia government — faces the immediate risk of reduced federal highway apportionments and the administrative and material costs of removing the phrase from all covered materials and renaming the street.
- DC residents and commuters — reduced or delayed transportation projects funded through the affected apportionment streams could slow upgrades, maintenance, or new projects benefiting users.
- Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation — will bear enforcement and administrative burdens, including monitoring compliance, deciding what counts as removal, and potentially defending enforcement decisions in litigation.
- Taxpayers and contractors tied to District projects — contract planning, procurement, and cashflow could be disrupted by an abrupt funding cut, increasing project risk and potential cost overruns.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether Congress may use federal highway funding as leverage to force a local government to alter expressive content and naming choices: the bill advances an interest in using federal dollars to achieve a specific policy outcome, but doing so risks running headlong into First Amendment protections and established limits on conditional federal spending and municipal autonomy.
The bill creates immediate legal and implementation ambiguities. It conditions infrastructure funding on a speech-related act: removing a political message and changing a street name.
That raises familiar constitutional questions about viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech, but also statutory issues under the federal-conditions framework. Courts apply tests for unambiguous conditions, relatedness between the condition and the federal program, and coercion; the statute’s placement in title 23 and its blunt withholding amount make those tests central to any challenge.
The text supplies no compliance verification mechanism, no appeal procedures, and no guidance on whether withheld funds are permanently lost or recoverable after later compliance.
Operationally, the requirement to remove the phrase from “each website, document, and other material” is extremely broad and undefined. Does it cover historical archives, third-party publications hosted on District-affiliated pages, signage on private property used with permission, or social-media posts by District employees?
The bill gives the Secretary responsibility for withholding but not clear standards for determining completion. Those gaps create enforcement discretion and likely litigation over scope.
Finally, while Congress has broad authority over the District, that plenary power is not unlimited where constitutional rights are implicated; the bill therefore pits congressional leverage over local policy against speech and autonomy concerns in a way that courts have not squarely resolved for this precise fact pattern.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.