The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop, within 30 days of enactment, a Program to beautify the District of Columbia: coordinating cleaning and graffiti removal, restoring damaged federal and local monuments, and encouraging private‑sector participation. The Secretary must consult specified federal and D.C. officials and report annually on progress; the Program sunsets January 2, 2029.
The bill also creates a District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission in the executive branch, chaired by a senior Executive Office of the President official. The Commission—made up of representatives from Interior, Transportation, DHS, FBI, U.S. Marshals, ATF, multiple U.S. Attorneys, and others—will recommend actions on a broad set of public‑safety and immigration issues (including “maximum enforcement” of federal immigration law), advise on MPD recruitment and resources, facilitate forensic lab accreditation, and promote stronger federal law‑enforcement presence at named sites.
The Commission must report to Congress and also sunsets January 2, 2029.Why this matters: the bill formalizes a federal coordinating vehicle that couples monument and public‑space maintenance with explicit immigration‑and‑law‑enforcement priorities. That mix changes how federal agencies engage with D.C. government, could redirect personnel and prosecutorial focus, and raises immediate questions about funding, authority, and D.C. home‑rule implications for a wide set of stakeholders—federal agencies, the District government, transit operators, contractors, and communities in the city.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to create a D.C. beautification Program within 30 days, requires annual congressional reports, and sets a January 2, 2029 sunset. It also establishes an executive‑branch Commission chaired from the Executive Office of the President; the Commission is charged with recommending and reviewing actions on immigration enforcement, public‑safety deployments, monument restoration, and related operational coordination.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include the Department of the Interior, DOJ components (including three U.S. Attorneys’ offices), DHS, DOT, GSA, the Metropolitan Police Department, WMATA, Park Police, Amtrak Police, private contractors for restoration/cleanup, and District of Columbia officials and agencies. Communities in D.C. and individuals subject to immigration enforcement would be operationally affected by the Commission’s immigration‑focused functions.
Why It Matters
The measure institutionalizes federal coordination over D.C. public spaces while expressly linking that agenda to immigration enforcement and prosecutorial policy recommendations. That scope can shift where federal resources and law‑enforcement attention are directed inside the Nation’s Capital and sets a model for using federal commissions to influence municipal policing and prosecutorial priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two connected vehicles: a short‑term DOI program to ‘beautify’ the District and a standing interagency Commission that centralizes federal input on safety, monuments, and immigration in D.C. For the Program, DOI must develop a plan within 30 days and consult named federal and D.C. officials.
The Program’s mandate is practical—coordinating cleaning and graffiti removal, restoring damaged or removed monuments, and encouraging private‑sector involvement—paired with an annual progress report to specific congressional committees. The Program is explicitly time‑limited and terminates January 2, 2029.
Separately, the bill establishes a District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission inside the executive branch. The President must name a senior EOP official as Chair within 45 days; agency heads must designate Commission representatives within 45 days.
The Chair will set meetings, name additional members, and produce a charter that must be submitted promptly to Congress. Membership is broad and law‑enforcement heavy: Interior, Transportation, Homeland Security, FBI, U.S. Marshals, ATF, multiple U.S. Attorneys (D.C., Maryland, and Eastern District of Virginia), and any others the Chair adds.The Commission’s written functions are unusually expansive.
It is tasked with recommending and reviewing steps to promote ‘maximum enforcement’ of federal immigration laws in D.C., monitoring sanctuary‑status compliance, promoting forensic lab accreditation, assisting the Metropolitan Police Department with recruitment and federal support, speeding and lowering concealed‑carry licensing costs, advising on revisions to pretrial detention prosecutorial policy, curbing WMATA fare evasion, and facilitating increased federal (and coordinated local) law‑enforcement presence at named public sites (National Mall, Lafayette Park, Union Station, Rock Creek Park, and several parkways). The Commission can request operational assistance from federal and local entities “to the extent permitted by law,” but the bill grants it advisory and coordinating powers rather than independent enforcement authority.Practically, the statute creates near‑term deadlines (30 and 45 days) that will drive rapid interagency meetings and chartering, structures a recurring congressional reporting requirement, and gives a White House‑appointed Chair gatekeeping power over additional membership.
Because both the Program and Commission expire in early 2029, their initiatives and any interagency commitments are explicitly temporary under this text; sustained changes would require follow‑on legislation or agency action beyond the sunsets.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of the Interior must develop the D.C. beautification Program within 30 days of enactment and consult the Attorney General, Secretary of Transportation, the Mayor of D.C.
the U.S. Attorney for D.C.
the GSA Administrator, and other officials the Secretary deems appropriate.
The Program requires a progress report to four named congressional committees (two House committees and two Senate committees) no later than one year after enactment and annually thereafter.
The bill establishes a District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission whose Chair must be a senior Executive Office of the President official designated within 45 days; the Chair submits a Commission charter to Congress within seven days after completing it.
Commission membership must be designated by agency heads within 45 days and explicitly includes Interior, DOT, DHS, FBI, U.S. Marshals, ATF, and U.S. Attorneys for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and the Eastern District of Virginia; the Chair may add other federal entities.
Both the Program and the Commission have a hard sunset—they terminate January 2, 2029—and the Commission’s listed functions include promoting ‘maximum enforcement’ of federal immigration laws in D.C.
facilitating federal law‑enforcement deployments at named parks and memorials, and recommending prosecutorial policy changes on pretrial detention.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name “Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2026.” This is purely a caption, but it frames the statute’s dual emphases on aesthetics and safety that recur throughout the operative sections.
DOI Program establishment and consultation requirements
Mandates that the Secretary of the Interior develop a Program to beautify D.C. within 30 days and to consult enumerated officials (Attorney General, Secretary of Transportation, Mayor of D.C., U.S. Attorney for D.C., GSA Administrator) and any other federal or D.C. heads the Secretary chooses. The 30‑day clock creates an administrative imperative to convene stakeholders quickly and signals that the Program should be operationalized as a near‑term initiative rather than a prolonged planning exercise.
Program scope and objectives
Defines the Program’s core tasks: coordinating cleanliness and maintenance across federal and D.C. facilities and public spaces (including graffiti removal), restoring damaged or removed monuments and markers to the extent practicable, and encouraging private‑sector participation. This language leaves implementation methods flexible—MOUs, contractor work, or interagency tasking—but binds DOI to a multi‑site, mixed federal/local portfolio (parks, transit systems, sidewalks, roadways, memorials).
Reporting and sunset for the Program
Requires an initial report to four specified congressional committees within one year and annual updates thereafter summarizing progress. The Program is explicitly temporary, terminating on January 2, 2029; that limits statutory authority and places a practical deadline on deliverables and interagency commitments unless Congress extends or replaces the authority.
Commission creation, membership, and Chair role
Creates an executive‑branch Commission with membership drawn from a prescribed list of federal agencies and U.S. Attorneys, and requires agency heads to designate their representatives within 45 days. The President must designate a senior EOP official as Chair within 45 days; the Chair schedules meetings, designates additional members, and coordinates the drafting and prompt submission of a charter to Congress. Those fixed timelines will drive rapid staffing and dictate early priorities for the new body.
Commission functions, coordination authority, reporting, and sunset
Lists broad—often law‑enforcement‑oriented—functions: recommending actions for ‘maximum enforcement’ of federal immigration law in D.C.; monitoring sanctuary status; facilitating forensic lab accreditation; assisting MPD recruitment and federal personnel support; aiding concealed‑carry processing speed/cost; recommending prosecutorial policy on pretrial detention; addressing WMATA fare evasion; and facilitating greater federal/local law‑enforcement deployments at named sites. The Commission may request operational assistance from agencies like MPD, WMATA, U.S. Park Police, and Amtrak Police “to the extent permitted by law,” but it has no independent statutory enforcement power. It must report to Congress on actions taken and may propose legislation. Like the Program, the Commission terminates January 2, 2029.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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 agencies seeking centralized coordination—Interior, DOT, DHS, DOJ components—gain a formal forum to align restoration, visitor safety, and immigration priorities and to press for resource commitments and operational cooperation. This reduces transaction costs for cross‑agency initiatives.
- Monument preservationists, National Mall stakeholders, and tourists could see faster restoration and more consistent maintenance of federal properties because the Program and Commission explicitly prioritize cleanup and repair at high‑visibility sites.
- Contractors and vendors that provide cleaning, graffiti removal, monument conservation, or forensic accreditation services are likely to see new procurement opportunities if agencies execute the Program’s remedial work or accelerate accreditation processes for the forensic lab.
Who Bears the Cost
- District of Columbia government and local agencies may face shifted responsibilities and friction: federal proposals to redirect enforcement priorities and increase federal presence could complicate D.C.’s own policy choices and resource planning, and may require coordination costs or matched local contributions.
- Federal agencies named to the Commission must designate representatives and participate in meetings and planning; absent new appropriations, participation will consume staff time and possibly require reallocation of personnel and funds.
- Communities subject to enhanced immigration enforcement or increased prosecutorial detention recommendations bear operational and civil‑liberties risk: the Commission’s explicit push for ‘maximum enforcement’ and changes to pretrial detention policy targets enforcement intensity rather than infrastructure, which can increase enforcement activity in neighborhoods and transit corridors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to pursue visible, centralized federal action to protect monuments and public spaces by leveraging federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement—thereby prioritizing security and deterrence—or to respect D.C. home‑rule and community trust by limiting federal intervention and prioritizing local, community‑oriented solutions; the bill solves for visibility and enforcement but does so by concentrating federal influence over matters traditionally managed by local authorities.
The bill bundles a low‑barrier administrative cleanup/restoration mandate with politically charged law‑enforcement and immigration objectives. That combination creates implementation complexity: DOI can plan and coordinate maintenance tasks, but many substantive functions the Commission is asked to advance—shifting prosecutorial policy, increasing immigration enforcement, deploying federal officers in local spaces—depend on other agencies’ legal authorities, funding, and operational choices.
The phrase “to the extent permitted by law” preserves legal limits but leaves open how and when agencies will act, and whether formal MOUs or new appropriations will be required.
Key operational questions remain unresolved in the text. The statute does not appropriate funds, so cleaning, restoration, forensic accreditation, or the deployment of federal personnel would rely on existing budgets or new funding measures.
The Commission is advisory: it can recommend “maximum enforcement” but cannot itself order arrests or compel a local agency to change policy; how those recommendations translate into practice will depend on agency leadership and local cooperation. The statutory inclusion of U.S. Attorneys for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia expands federal prosecutorial geography and raises cross‑jurisdictional coordination questions for prosecutions and evidence handling.
Finally, the sunset date (January 2, 2029) limits the time to achieve durable accreditation, prosecution, or infrastructure changes, potentially favoring short‑term, highly visible actions over long‑term capacity building.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.