Inside the internal turmoil between D.C. agencies, local police, and the National Security Council to clear homeless encampments

Photo illustration, showing a woman with dark hair sitting on the sidewalk, looking into the camera. Behind her, several emails are arrayed.
Meghann Abraham sitting outside MLK Library. Emails obtained by Street Sense between D.C. Police officers, Deputy Mayor Wayne Turnage, and the National Security Council surround her. Photo by Madi Koesler. Graphic by Keilah Tumaob

On the afternoon of Aug. 14, 2025, D.C. police walked the streets surrounding the White House looking for encampments. Officers took notes of where homeless people slept and sat, emails Street Sense obtained via public records request show. After the team of at least three walked the streets of downtown D.C., they created a list of 25 tents, tarps, and benches.

At least 14 of those sites would be removed by local police in federally-driven encampment clearings the next day, displacing over a dozen people. The week that followed — full of sweeps motivated by President Donald Trump’s hardline stance against visible homelessness — caused confusion and chaos among people experiencing homelessness in the District and changed the reality of living outside.

While it was immediately clear the closures in August of last year resulted from federal pressure, additional emails from that time obtained by Street Sense shed light on the weeks-long federal influence on D.C.’s homelessness policy, and how that week’s actions continue to echo a year after the takeover officially ended.

As jurisdictions across the country pass anti-camping legislation, the White House continues to push for “beautification” and criminalizing sleeping outside through executive orders and funding decisions. In the District, long-standing, multi-tent encampments have been eradicated as single-person encampment clearings have skyrocketed. As Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Wayne Turnage said during an oversight hearing earlier this year, D.C. has shifted from maintaining encampments to closing them, with the District on track to close twice as many encampments in 2026 as in 2025. The impact of the two-week crackdown on visible homelessness last summer lingers. And so do questions about what actually happened.



Federal interest in homelessness in D.C. began months before the takeover. On March 28, 2025, Trump signed an executive order creating the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force to increase police presence in public areas and maximize immigration enforcement. The order specifically mentioned removing all homelessness on federal land, creating anxiety among outreach teams and encampment communities.

Emails obtained by Street Sense shed light on the taskforce’s early interest in the District’s response to homelessness.

In a thread beginning on May 2, 2025, Orville Greene, then the White House official in charge of the task force, who also served as the Homeland Security Council’s transnational threats director for narcotics and opioids, according to his emails, connected with a mix of local and federal agencies to establish the “Homelessness Working Group.”

“We look forward to helping you through any blockers to ensure the execution of President Trump’s Executive Order,” Greene ended his email.

On May 7, Talor Wasden, nee Allen, policy advisor for the National Security Council (NSC), responded. She listed the organizations that made up the group: the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the D.C. Department of Transportation, the Executive Office of the Mayor, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

Some of these agencies, including the NSC and MPD, would eventually collaborate on federally led encampment clearings in August 2025.

HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Caitlyn McKenney replied to this thread with an attached proposal for an emergency shelter in D.C. for the group to discuss with the goal to “decrease unsheltered homelessness and increase public safety and access to public spaces.”

Street Sense has not obtained further communications from the working group’s discussions. But three months later, on Aug. 10, Trump posted photos of tents along I-66 on Truth Social. The next day, Trump declared “Liberation Day” during a press conference, officially invoking Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act, allowing the president to take control of MPD during an emergency, and deploying the National Guard to the District.

Anxiety, chaos, and poor interagency communication ensued over the following days as D.C.’s Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services (DMHHS), which houses the city’s encampment team, cancelled scheduled encampment closures, turning instead to the tents photographed by Trump — setting a precedent of rapid-paced clearings with reduced notice and outreach.

Normally, the DMHHS encampment team partners with locally contracted outreach teams and the D.C. Department of Behavioral Services (DBH) to give encampment residents notice and offer shelter and storage for their belongings before clearings. While police are sometimes present at encampment closures, they are not led by law enforcement. At the time of the federal takeover, DMHHS’ protocol required the District give at least a week’s notice before scheduled engagements unless there were immediate health and safety concerns. All clearings also had to be justified by health and safety concerns until early 2025, when Turnage, who oversees DMHHS, said in an oversight hearing increased closures were “more consistent with the mayor’s goal that people don’t sleep outside.

NPS has the authority to respond to homelessness on federal lands, like parks and monuments, but, unlike DMHHS, it is not required to provide prior notice or connect residents with outreach services.

DMHHS began preparing for the possibility of a federal surge on Aug. 7, internal emails show. In one email, in response to a concern from a community member, Turnage wrote, “If Trump declares an emergency and brings in the National Guard to supplant law enforcement, whether the encampment is on federal or District land will not matter. This will be a difficult three or four days.”

Emails the evening of Aug. 13 between Greene, who was detailed to the NSC, Turnage, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Lindsey Appiah, former D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith, Chief Inspector Donald Snider — who commands the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force for the U.S. Marshals Service and redacted parties from the U.S. Department of Justice established Turnage as the District’s point of contact for encampment removals that night. Turnage asked federal officials to give his team advance notice so they could marshal “necessary social support services.” This request would largely be ignored.

On the morning of Aug. 14, the District led a closure at the grassy field beside the Peace Institute — now named after the president — which Trump had posted photos of days earlier. It displaced at least eight residents. Despite the heightened attention, the process generally followed D.C.’s encampment protocol, which requires residents receive notice and be offered services; the normal groups of outreach workers, encampment team staff, biohazard engineers, and behavioral health workers just moved on a tighter schedule due to the federal pressure.

Several tents on a grassy field. People are standing near the tents. In the background, the Lincoln Memorial is visible through trees.
Outreach workers amongst the tents photographed by President Donald Trump along I-66. Photo by Madi Koesler

Following the clearing, Turnage took questions from the press. He told reporters the District did not have control of a list of encampments federal forces wanted to close, but he had received notice closures could begin that evening. “We don’t control the list. If we got it, we certainly will be happy to share it, but we don’t have a list right now,” Turnage said.

Internal emails obtained by Street Sense show that around the same time Turnage fielded questions, MPD officers, then under federal control, were developing a list of encampments, all within a roughly 10-block radius of the White House. At least 14 sites on the list would be the target of MPD clearings that would break District protocol and send shockwaves of fear across the city in the following days, though outreach workers and residents confirmed several of the other sites were impacted during the federal takeover.

The officers, whose names were redacted, sent their notes, at least some of which were in Comic Sans font, to Commander Jason Bagshaw to compile into a finalized encampment list at 1:31 p.m. One of the canvassing officers specified in a follow-up email to Bagshaw that “All sites provided were encampments of either tents or tarps cover park benches.”

Email listing homeless encampments. The font is Comic Sans.
An earlier version of the list from the internal MPD emails written in Comic Sans font.

While DMHHS and the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS) maintain encampment lists and information on people sleeping outside for outreach purposes, neither Street Sense nor outreach workers are aware of police previously leading an effort to identify encampments.

Email listing homeless encampments
The 25 site list sent by MPD’s Executive Assistant Chief of Specialized Operations Jeffery Carroll.

MPD’s then-Executive Assistant Chief of Specialized Operations Jeffery Carroll, now the interim chief, sent the finalized list in a separate chain between MPD officers, Turnage, Appiah, Smith, D.C. DHS Director Rachel Pierre, and encampment team members at 3:57 p.m., asking it not be shared outside the group.

That afternoon, DMHHS notices were placed at several of the tents near Washington Circle. The area was scheduled to be cleared at the end of August; the notices moved up the clearing to that upcoming Monday.

Closure notices became a point of contention between Washington Circle encampment resident Meghann Abraham and federal forces when officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, and Homeland Security arrived around 9 p.m. later that night to clear the site. Abraham responded by showing them the notice she’d received from the District, insisting she had until Monday to relocate. The large group of federal agents took photos of the notice and surrounding tents, then left.

Close-up of a tent with a piece of paper attached. The paper is a notice from a D.C. government that an encampment cleanup will happen soon.
One of the sticker notices from DMHHS received by Washington Circle Park residents on Aug. 14, 2025. Photo by Madi Koesler

As this standoff ensued, then-U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued the now-nicknamed “Bondi Order” to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser that attempted to seize operational control of MPD. This essentially implemented Drug Enforcement Agency Administrator Terrence Cole as the “Emergency Police Commissioner,” or the police chief. It also directed officers to enforce laws and regulations around unlawful occupancy of public spaces “to the maximum extent permissible by law.”

Federal forces regrouped in the circle around 9:30 p.m. and did not leave the area until around midnight, though they did not attempt to clear the encampment. Outreach workers and local government officials, under the impression the District had prevailed, reassured residents they would have until Monday to pack, relocate, and move into shelter if they wanted.

The next morning, everything shifted when Andy Wassenich, director of policy for Miriam’s Kitchen, received a call around 10:30 a.m. from a friend who worked in a building overlooking the District’s Downtown Day Services Center, where people experiencing homelessness often spend time. An influx of MPD officers had just arrived outside the day center, which was also included on MPD’s list of sites.

Immediately, Wassenich messaged a Signal group chat with other homelessness outreach providers and mutual aid partners. As outreach teams scrambled to mobilize to other sites on the list, MPD officers and multiple Department of Public Works (DPW) crews arrived nine blocks away at Washington Circle around 10:40 a.m. Without any advance notice, DPW workers began filling trash trucks with the tents and belongings of residents, many of whom were not present, as at least 15 officers stood watch.

A man shovels material into a trash truck. Nearby, a man in a high-visibility vest appears to drag a tent, and a police officer looks on.
A D.C. Department of Public Works employee tosses belongings at Washington Circle Park on Aug. 15, 2025. Photo by Madi Koesler

While Abraham was on the phone with her dad, MPD officers approached her, telling her, “We’re clearing all this up today.” Her boyfriend, who she shared her tent with, was at work, and her neighbors were nowhere to be found. As trash trucks surrounded the circle and DPW workers began to drag tents full of belongings into the street to dispose of them, Abraham rushed to decide what she would be able to carry away with her just as outreach workers arrived at the scene.

MPD and DPW crews then moved west from Washington Circle to continue to clear tents near Godey Lime Kiln, sites also on the MPD encampments list, as outreach workers raced after them on foot to attempt to reach residents before police.

A man wearing a red shirt and jeans, with his hand on the shoulder of a second man. The second man is shirtless and on a bicycle. They are in a green area with trees, and a woman in a uniform is just visible in the background.
Georgetown Ministry’s Outreach Coordinator Ben Zack helped the only resident present at 26 and L Street NW move his belongings as MPD arrived to the encampment. Photo by Madi Koesler

As MPD cars flashing their lights escorted trash trucks full of tents and furniture out of Washington Circle, it appeared the District’s encampment team had no idea. In an email sent by Turnage at 11:01 a.m. to various members of the team and other local agencies, he warned MPD might close Washington Circle before the District’s scheduled engagement three days later, despite his recommendation to them to wait.

“It was not clear to me from the conversation whether my advice will be heeded,” he wrote. “We are waiting to hear from federal officials and MPD regarding their plans for tonight and the weekend. By any metric, last night did not go well and they will regroup today.”

At this point, the Washington Circle encampment was already gone.


Meanwhile, the balance of power was shifting behind the scenes. Just after 5 p.m. that afternoon, outside of the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb addressed the media, revealing Judge Ana Reyes had restored Smith’s position as MPD chief.

“We have made it very clear that we have laws in our city,” Schwalb told the crowd.

MPD declined to comment on questions related to the Bondi order and any directives regarding encampments issued by Cole, who Trump had placed in charge of MPD, between Aug. 14 and 15, 2025. To the knowledge of outreach workers and Street Sense, the only MPD-led clearings took place while Cole was in control of MPD. The D.C. Attorney General also did not respond to a request for comment.

While the ruling re-established local control of MPD, it did not stop federal influence, and the fight between local agencies and federal forces to control unsheltered homelessness in the District was just beginning.

In the week after the Washington Circle clearing, DMHHS, DHS, and DBH grappled with how to respond to federal requests for encampment clearings, internal emails show.

Late into the night on Aug. 16, Greene asked Turnage for his “urgent assistance” assigning a point of contact to assist “relocating the homeless encountered by law enforcement [in] the District tonight and tomorrow night.”

Turnage responded the next morning, appearing confused, asking about the federal clearings, and noting he was informed the “encampment phase of the operation [was] complete.” He again urged Greene to inform the District if encampment sweeps continued, so it could direct its outreach teams for assistance.

Multiple internal interagency meetings wrestled with how to respond to one-off encampment requests from MPD and the White House, the impacts of federal clearings, and how to adapt. An agenda Turnage sent to his administrative assistant on Aug. 20 for one of these meetings includes items such as: “Report on Latest Census For Homeless Encampments,” “Resources Required To Execute A More Expedited Encampment Clearing Process, Post Federal Surge” and “Changes Needed To Implement A More Appropriately Aggressive FD –12 Process.”

“I will use the information from this meeting to develop a communication to the [city administrator] with specific recommendations to expedite encampment closures following the surge, and to have a more efficacious FD-12 process,” Turnage added.

Over the first week of the takeover, emails from Turnage suggest a so-called “tour of duty” began with District staff on 24-hour standby for federal agencies to call about homelessness. An Aug. 20 email from a DMHHS staff member notes Bowser specifically asked for behavioral health and encampment teams “to be ready for deployment once a concern is flagged.”

Emails from Aug. 21 confirm at least one federal official, Greene, was still directly involved at this point. Turnage wrote to his team at 7:28 p.m., “But Orville [Greene] is saying ‘hold your people until I speak with [Jennifer Reed, director at Office of Budget and Performance Management]’” regarding sending home staff on-call for evening encampment engagements.

This email is the last documentation Street Sense obtained on federal involvement with closures. But outreach workers say federal pressure remains, continuing to cause displacement and disruption.

When asked specifically about collaboration with the White House, MPD, federal law enforcement, and the NSC on encampment clearings between Aug. 11, 2025 and Sept. 13, 2025, a DMHHS spokesperson stated, “There were no special collaborations initiated to report on behalf of DMHHS” and deferred to MPD and federal agencies “to speak to their process on encampment engagements.”

MPD, for its part, deferred to DMHHS and stated, “The MPD’s role in encampment removals is limited to maintaining peace during engagement events related to encampment protocols.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

On Aug. 19, then-Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a briefing 48 encampments were cleared by “multi-agency teams [and] MPD Patrol units.” Street Sense has never been able to independently confirm this number, and the White House has not provided lists of locations or dates despite multiple requests. In addition to the 25 sites on the list, many of which were cleared, there were three more federally mandated clearings and seven District-led clearings between Aug. 18 and Sept. 1, according to DMHHS. Combined with the closures near the Peace Institute and clearings mentioned in internal emails, this could account for up to 40 sites.

Additionally, since the announcement of the Safe and Beautiful Task Force, NPS has cleared 169 encampments on federal land, the agency wrote in a statement on Aug. 28, 2026. NPS declined to provide lists of sites impacted or dates to confirm if these sites were included in the number Leavitt mentioned and has not responded to Street Sense public records requests for the information.


Despite claims by Trump at a rally in August of this year in South Carolina that “The homeless are no longer there [in DC] in the tents that were all over the place,” hundreds of people are still living outside in the District and have only been forced to become more mobile.

Following the clearings, Abraham and her boyfriend moved to a secluded part of the woods roughly two hours by bus from Washington Circle. But after their tent burned down last winter, the two have found themselves sleeping outside MLK Library, where the couple met.

Since moving back to downtown, Abraham’s been able to reconnect with caseworkers but feels let down by the outreach system. She’s been waiting for a housing voucher for about two years and transitional housing for four months.

“They’re just making you go around in circles and there is no way out of it,” Abraham said.

Even with new enforcement of a sleeping ban at the library, they plan to stay in the area because they count on the groups that come by with food, clothes, and toiletries. Abraham also relies on the internet access and library computers to complete her online college coursework at the University of Maryland Global Campus, where she is pursuing her bachelor’s in Homeland Security, supported by Pell Grants and student loans.

In the year since the clearing, Abraham’s only seen one of her old neighbors once, while eating in the Miriam’s Kitchen dining room.

She had him write down his number on a piece of paper because she shares a phone with her boyfriend, but on the walk home it started to rain. When she got back to her encampment and pulled out the number, the rain had smudged the writing. She hasn’t seen any of her old neighbors since.

“I don’t know where they went,” Abraham said. “It’s kinda stressful to have someone in your life for a year and then have no way to contact them. That’s what all this displacement is doing.”

A woman sitting on the sidewalk, looking directly into the camera. A full shopping cart is visible at the left edge of the frame.
Meghann Abraham beside her belongings at MLK Library, 2026. Photo by Madi Koesler

Outreach teams echo this sentiment. Since several of the clearings last year did not work with District teams to provide outreach, caseworkers have lost contact with dozens of clients, cutting off crucial access to services.

When residents move between the three Street Outreach Network’s provider zones, there is no communication between the District-contracted service providers. Providers can see outreach history in a shared database if residents reconnect. But this is not guaranteed.

Amid a voucher drought that continues to delay residents’ transition off the streets, outreach workers are fearful of the continued communications disruptions and their lasting impact on people living in encampments. Outreach workers emphasized that without proper communication, repeated clearings can create unnecessary trauma.

“Perhaps society has always felt this way, but to have it said so blankly and then to have the action be so clear, it is felt deeply by our guests,” Claire Wilson, executive director of Georgetown Ministries, said. “This past year, we’ve seen a lot more trauma, a lot more complexity in terms of behaviors. A lot of people are feeling very, very defeated.”

According to outreach workers and government employees, the encampments team is trying to adhere to normal protocol when possible, but federal pressure continues to make this difficult.

Prior to the federal takeover, outreach workers say there was more communication from DMHHS ahead of encampment closures. But now, on multiple occasions, outreach workers say they are not properly notified of scheduled engagements by the encampment team. Outreach workers have found out about scheduled engagements first from clients, after they received stickers marking their belongings for cleanup. DMHHS has also repeatedly cancelled interagency monthly meetings between DHS outreach partners and the encampments team, according to one of the outreach partners.

The District has cleared more encampments so far this year than in 2024 or 2025. The monthly average for clearings for those years sat between eight to nine per month, but according to data from DMHHS, the monthly average so far this year is closer to 17 clearings.

Clearings this year also look different. Outreach workers and legal advocates have noticed increases in clearings of single-person, mobile set-ups that would be less likely to draw attention in the past. This is especially true of Ward 2, which includes most of downtown, where there’s a high number of federal forces. If tents do pop up, they are almost immediately tagged for removal, outreach workers said. There are no longer visible, long-standing, multi-tent encampments in D.C. as a result of these efforts, but people remain outside.

DMHHS denies any of its policies have changed. A spokesperson repeated many times in a statement to Street Sense that “The posture of the DMHHS Encampment Response Team has remained consistent as it relates to supporting service engagements and connection efforts for vulnerable residents residing in encampments, while continuing to address all health and safety concerns or intrusions connected to encampments on public space.”

Outreach workers, advocates, and people living outside continue to argue against displacement. Instead, they’re urging the federal and local government to shift focus and funding from increasing clearings to housing vouchers and wrap-around services that focus more on residents’ well-being than erasing visible homelessness.

“If you really don’t want to look at us, you really need to provide services — give us actual options that are viable,” Abraham said. “A lot of us are down and out of it. We need a hand up. Give us the hand up.”

Podcast: Waymo Leader Makes the Case For Robotaxis in D.C.

Does D.C. want robotaxis? Will Waymo kill jobs?

On the Dream City podcast, hear directly from Matt Walsh, Waymo's regional head of state and local public policy. Cuneyt Dil presses Walsh on labor’s warnings about lost driving jobs, the company’s safety record, and whether a multibillion-dollar technology company is prepared to make a significant investment in D.C. They also get into Waymo’s response to labor's accusations that it is trying to “steamroll” the city, the possibility of a deal with unions and Janeese Lewis George, and when riders might finally be able to take a driverless car to DCA or Dulles.

The Dream City Podcast holds the powerful accountable and takes you inside D.C.’s business and political worlds. Along the way: Revelatory conversations with city officials, business leaders, and the best-sourced journalists in town. Dream City is supported by SpotlightDC.

Podcast: Will D.C. Approve Waymo's Self-Driving Cars?

The fight over Waymo's self-driving cars in D.C. is shaping up to be a big one. Labor unions, which fear the loss of gig economy jobs, have already started protesting. Waymo counters that it will hire hundreds of people to maintain its robotaxis.

On the Dream City Podcast, Cuneyt Dil digs into the coming fight with Mark Segraves of NBC4. They also break down Vice President J.D. Vance's rental of a sprawling estate in Virginia and the valuable naming rights and seat licenses included in the Commanders stadium deal.

The Dream City Podcast holds the powerful accountable and takes you inside D.C.’s business and political worlds. Along the way: Revelatory conversations with city officials, business leaders, and the best-sourced journalists in town. Dream City is supported by SpotlightDC.

D.C. Tenant Advocates Sound Alarm About a RENTAL Act Loophole

Photo illustration of DC's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act being raised by cranes with a row of houses in the background.
(Maddie Poore)

The elevators in Harry Gural’s rent-controlled building on Connecticut Avenue haven’t been reliable for over a decade. It’s part of a string of maintenance problems that have plagued his older building. “They just haven’t fixed things for years and years and years,” he said.

But now, Gural wonders whether he should have a new concern: If his landlord significantly renovates the building to fix these outstanding issues, he and other tenants could be at risk of losing crucial rights.

Last year, the D.C. Council passed a bill overhauling the city’s housing law and significantly weakening major protections for tenants. Mayor Muriel Bowser first announced the Rebalancing Expectations for Neighbors, Tenants, and Landlords (RENTAL) Act in February 2025 — aiming, she said, to address a rent-delinquency crisis and encourage more private investment in market-rate housing. Housing and tenant advocates immediately sounded the alarm about the bill, arguing that it stripped tenants of their most crucial rights, including eviction protections and renters’ rights to buy their building. But most of the city’s lawmakers eventually rallied behind it.

“We are building housing too slowly,” Councilmember Robert White, chairman of the housing committee, said at the time. “We are driving landlords and investors away. We cannot lose sight of the impact on real people.”

The law passed later that year with 10 councilmembers voting in favor. Following pushback from advocates, some older buildings — like Gural’s — were spared the loss of some rights in the final statute. Advocates believed it was a hard-won reprieve in a law they broadly disliked. But less than a year after passage, developers, tenant advocates, and real estate attorneys say there is confusion about that supposed concession. Older buildings are being subjected to RENTAL Act rules even though legislators and advocates say they shouldn't be —  and it’s threatening to dramatically expand the number of tenants losing their rights.

At the center of the issue is the way the RENTAL Act erodes the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), a landmark housing law passed in 1980 in response to the city’s affordable housing crisis. The law gives renters the first right of refusal to buy their building or to choose a buyer when it goes up for sale. For D.C.’s renters, TOPA isn’t just a way to purchase their building — it’s also a tool they can use to negotiate with a potential buyer, pushing for things like repairs or caps on rent increases. Over the past 40 years, the law has created or preserved more than 16,000 affordable housing units, according to the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development.

One of the RENTAL Act’s most consequential changes included exempting all buildings constructed in the last 15 years from TOPA. While the RENTAL Act included a series of changes to TOPA, this one affected approximately 81,000 existing units and untold more in the future, creating a "historic loss of tenants’ rights," according to Mychal Cohen, a senior policy analyst at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

But today, ambiguous wording in the new law and confusing guidance from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is creating uncertainty about what counts as a new building under the law, tenant advocates, developers, and real estate professionals told The 51st. Some sellers are already taking advantage of the lack of clarity and are marketing older, rent-controlled buildings that have been renovated as “new construction,” and thus also TOPA- exempt.

This behavior has undermined one of the slim tenant protections advocates were able to preserve in the law, they say. (In a last-minute amendment, most 2-4 unit buildings also lost their TOPA rights under the act). Tenant organizers fought to retain TOPA rights for tenants in renovated buildings, and the D.C. Council’s Committee on Housing said they excised that particular exemption for fear that landlords would rush to renovate just to wiggle out of TOPA. 

“Improvements are just part of what you do as a landlord,” said Gural, who is a longtime advocate for tenants’ rights. “I'm not sure why that should give you a TOPA exemption.”

Like many tenant organizers and advocates, he sees the change as linked to a larger unraveling of the city’s protections for renters in favor of commercial interests.

“Tenants are just run over like a truck, and they're looking for some hand in the destiny of their building, and that's why they find it offensive if their TOPA rights are eroded,” Gural said.

When New Means Renovated

As the RENTAL Act is written, a property can be exempt from TOPA if it receives a permanent certificate of occupancy for a “new multifamily building” in the last 15 years. This is a document that confirms a building has met all regulatory requirements and is officially safe for habitation. But the D.C. Department of Buildings (DOB) grants new permanent certificates of occupancy for substantial renovations to existing buildings as well as for new ones. This has led to confusion, said Dennis Cravedi, Senior Vice President at commercial real estate law firm Horvath & Tremblay. The law could be interpreted to say that a landlord who renovates or redevelops their existing building could also qualify for the TOPA exemption, he said.

The law doesn’t clarify what “new construction” means when it comes to this TOPA exemption, said DHCD spokesperson Timothy Wilson. The agency "interprets the law to mean that properties that underwent substantial rehabilitation or gut renovation are not exempt from TOPA unless they qualify under the new construction exemption, which requires a permanent Certificate of Occupancy issued within the past 15 years.”

This, however, is exactly the problem, advocates say. Applying DHCD’s interpretation means that an older property that undergoes a major modernization may be considered a new building after securing a brand-new permanent certificate, allowing landlords of decades-old buildings to claim the "new construction" shield.

According to a Department of Buildings (DOB) spokesperson, a newly issued permanent certificate of occupancy alone cannot prove whether a building is “new construction or a substantial renovation or conversion.” Identifying whether a building is actually new construction, they said, would require looking beyond the permanent certificate of occupancy to review the building permits and construction plans.

With the law so unclearly defined, local attorneys are bracing for confusion. Attorneys in the Real Estate Practice Group at law firm Ballard Spahr alerted clients after a January meeting with DHCD that a full rollout of formal guidance on the changes to TOPA could take up to two years, noting that parts of the law “are unclear and subject to interpretation.”

The real-world consequences of this regulatory confusion are already playing out in the market. A recent listing by brokerage firm Marcus and Millichap advertises a 36-unit property at 5010 Southern Avenue SE as completely TOPA-exempt new construction, although it’s more than 60 years old.

Lorenzo Wooten, the listing broker, told The 51st that the property was fully renovated in 2015. Wooten said DHCD explicitly advised him that because more than half of the building was renovated and received a new permanent certificate of occupancy in 2015, it qualified as new construction. (DHCD denies this, saying they have “not provided any formal or informal guidance establishing a renovation threshold for an exemption.")

Wooten is not the only one using an interpretation of the law that would exempt renovated buildings from TOPA protections. The Small Multifamily Owners Association, a landlord lobbying group, hosted a webinar in March where Terrence Laney, the administrator of the Rental Conversion and Sale Division — the part of DHCD that manages TOPA — suggested that buildings undergoing substantial renovations could qualify for the law’s 15-year TOPA exemption. (Laney has since been placed on leave amid accusations of conflicts of interest).

This interpretation threatens to exempt thousands of older renovated buildings that received new permanent certificates in the last 15 years. Just in the last two-and-a-half years, DOB issued 5,798 permanent certificates of occupancy, according to the agency’s own data. Of those, nearly 80% were for modifications to existing structures. New construction accounted for only 986 certificates.

Laney was asked in the webinar, which was reviewed by The 51st, if gut renovations qualified as new construction. His response was: "If the permanent certificate of occupancy has been issued in the last 15 years, which designates that as new construction, it is exempt."

Similar reliance on a permanent certificate of occupancy to determine whether a building is new is used in a sample letter for landlords to send to tenants included in DHCD's Frequently Asked Questions on the RENTAL Act.

This kind of conflicting guidance is alarming legislators and tenant advocates alike.

“I worry that there is misleading information coming directly from the D.C. government that may be confusing tenants about their rights,” said Mel Zahnd, Supervising Attorney in the Housing Law Unit at Legal Aid DC.

Confusing paper trail

Tenant advocates and legislators said that Laney’s interpretation misses what was clearly the spirit of the law.

Robert White, who just won the race to become D.C.’s delegate to Congress and helped shape the final version of the law and pushed for its passage, strongly disputes it, saying that the law was meant to exempt newly constructed buildings or office-to-residential conversions from TOPA protections, not additions or renovations.

“We expect the Executive to directly address allegations that DHCD is promulgating guidance contrary to the law's intent,” White’s office told The 51st. 

"The clear and unambiguous legislative intent was to limit the “new construction” exemption to actual new construction,” said Joel Cohn, legislative director for the Office of the Tenant Advocate, the D.C. agency that offers legal support for renters. 

Wilson said DHCD’s job, however, is to “apply the statute as written.” The agency is currently reviewing 13 claims of new construction exemption and said the agency’s role is to “evaluate documentation showing whether a property meets the criteria for new construction,” rather than assessing whether a property has been renovated or the scope of that renovation.

Wilson also said that “future rulemaking could provide additional clarity.” The risk to tenants is further heightened because DHCD doesn’t appear to confirm the existence of a permanent certificate of occupancy when reviewing claims for TOPA exemption. According to Wilson, the agency may find a TOPA exemption claim deficient if “materials are missing, incomplete, or clearly inconsistent with statutory requirements.” But if an issue isn’t identified, “it does not independently verify Certificates of Occupancy beyond this.” 

A review of DOB records for Wooten’s listing at 5010 Southern Ave SE, for instance, does not show a permanent certificate of occupancy issued in the past 15 years, and Wooten did not explain the discrepancy or provide a copy of the certificate to The 51st. Mercedes Lemp, President and CEO of Housing Up, the nonprofit that owns the property through an LLC, did not answer questions about the claimed exemption, simply sending a copy of the 1996 permanent certificate of occupancy in response.

DHCD’s limited verification could mean that if individual tenants receive a notification that their building is not subject to TOPA as a result of the RENTAL Act’s new construction exemption, it is up to them to challenge this claim on their own (or with the help of a tenant advocate, if they’re able to get one). While renters have opportunities under the law to challenge a TOPA exemption, the confusing nature of the exemption makes the process almost impossible for most tenants to navigate. 

With little protection for tenants, advocates are already seeing a wave of questionable exemptions.

According to Cohn, his office is flagging “very problematic language,” including “wild characterizations of the actual law,” in the exemption notices that landlords are issuing to tenants.

Tenants lose out in a changing market 

For tenants, the threat posed by this new potential TOPA exemption for renovated buildings — as well as the broader erosion of TOPA under the RENTAL Act — extends beyond maintenance concerns to a fundamental erosion of their influence.

“It’s not about buying the building,” said Gural, who recently received a notification from his landlord that he won’t have TOPA rights as a result of a different provision in the RENTAL Act (which his tenant association is challenging). “It’s about having a seat at the table … having a hand in deciding what happens to the building.”

It’s why advocates were so worried about the passage of the RENTAL Act — it included so many carve-outs to TOPA that it threatens to swallow the law entirely. The weakening of TOPA is all the more concerning, Gural said, given the growing influence of private equity on D.C.'s housing market. These large companies often boost profits by hiking rents and slashing services before eventually offloading the building. 

Moreover, the law’s effects on the market may not be what many proponents of the RENTAL Act intended. While supporters said that removing TOPA protections would encourage investment in new housing, some real estate industry professionals told The 51st that confusion around the application of the law has created uncertainty, which isn’t good for business. “The RENTAL Act didn't really move the needle one way or the other,” Cravedi said. "If the goal was to really change the market or investor perception in D.C., then no, it has not had a big impact.”

As real estate and title attorney Kevin Bayly observes, the market values predictability above all. "You may have liked it or not liked it,” he said of traditional TOPA rules, “but you knew how it worked.” 

One D.C. developer, who requested anonymity, was more blunt in his assessment of the legislation: “They fucked up.”


This story was edited by Abigail Higgins, Natalie Delgadillo, and Benny Peterson.

Podcast: The Socialist Sweep in D.C.'s Primaries

On the heels of a wave of democratic socialist victories in D.C.'s primaries, the Dream City podcast analyzes the results.

Aparna Raj, winner of the Ward 1 D.C. Council Democratic primary, tells hosts Cuneyt Dil and Tom Sherwood why she thinks a message of affordability resonated with voters. Chuck Thies, a veteran D.C. strategist, also breaks down Janeese Lewis Georges's sweeping mayoral primary victory, why Kenyan McDuffie’s campaign never found its footing, and what the results say about the city’s political direction.

The Dream City Podcast holds the powerful accountable and takes you inside D.C.’s business and political worlds. Along the way: Revelatory conversations with city officials, business leaders, and the best-sourced journalists in town. Dream City is supported by SpotlightDC

D.C. Spent $1 Million Hiring Humans to Yell ‘Fire!’ in Government Office

The entrance to the Marion Barry Building, including several glass doors and a sign saying, "Marion S. Barry, Jr. Building".
The Marion Barry Building. Photo credit: Darrow Montgomery

The D.C. government shelled out $1.01 million for a team of seven contractors to manually watch for fire inside one of the city’s largest office buildings at 441 4th Street NW, named after former D.C. mayor Marion Barry. This human fire watch was intended as a temporary stopgap while the city spent $529,835 repairing the building’s faulty alert system. But taxpayers continued to foot the growing bill for nearly a year while repairs dragged on and fire officials continued to declare the system out of service, according to interviews and records reviewed by the City Paper.

“A fire watch was put in place as a precautionary measure while repairs were underway. Following a comprehensive inspection conducted on April 15 with the Fire Marshal, the fire watch requirement was officially lifted,” Julia Jessie, a spokesperson for the Department of General Services, told City Paper in early May, adding later that “Prioritizing the safety of the occupants in the building is paramount and the fire watch was an essential service while repairs were underway.”

When asked about the length of time needed for the repairs—and the steep bill—Jessie explains, “This is an 800,000-square-foot, 12-story occupied facility, and safety systems must operate around the clock. That level of coverage, over several months, directly drives the cost.”

The Marion S. Barry Jr. Building’s fire watch ran from late May 2025 to April 15, 2026, according to the DGS spokesperson and records reviewed by City Paper.

Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George helms the D.C. Council’s Committee on Facilities, which oversees government building maintenance at facilities like the Marion Barry Building. During her January committee oversight hearing, she heard testimony from an employee who works at the building about the fire watch, among other safety issues such as elevator outages. Since then, her office has requested details on the various issues, per a spokesperson.

“[Lewis George] is particularly concerned about the risks to employee safety and the liability that arises from falling or stuck elevators and the $100,000-per-month round-the-clock Fire Watch in lieu of functioning fire detectors and alarms,” the spokesperson tells City Paper

The D.C. Office of Risk Management was “aware” of the issues at the Marion Barry building, according to department spokesperson Jasmin Holmes. “Over the past year, we monitored the work being performed by DGS contractors to resolve outstanding concerns,” says Holmes. When asked if the office knew of any buildings with a fire watch that went on so long, Holmes says, “We are not aware of any other buildings operating under a fire watch.”

A shot of two elevators and their control panel.
The elevators at 441 4th St. NW. Photo credit: Darrow Montgomery

Five hundred “trouble” alerts

DGS set up the fire watch with the blessing of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services after a false alarm fire alert in May 2025 led employees to evacuate the Marion Barry Building, per an employee’s council testimony this year. Except, none of the alarms on the ninth floor went off, leaving those employees unaware of the (luckily nonexistent) fire below. 

A month later, an employee on the ninth floor “started an intense smoke-producing event in one of the break rooms when they accidentally microwaved a dry packet of noodles,” according to council testimony documents. The incident activated “industrial fans” to ventilate—but the floor’s smoke alarms again failed to go off. 

DGS then created the 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. workweek fire watch, hiring contractors from the ASAP Firewatch company in Fairfax, by submitting a plan to the Office of the Fire Marshal for approval. Fire watches are supposed to be a “short-term, emergency measure intended to provide an acceptable level of life safety when an unsafe or hazardous condition exists in a building or structure,” per FEMS’ policy, which emphasizes it is “only a compensatory measure.”

Fire inspectors visited the building several times between the original May incident and late 2025, originally finding nearly 500 “trouble” alerts plaguing the fire alert setup, per FOIA records. By August, DGS’ repairs had reduced the number of alerts to around 30. The same inspection logs also detail issues fire officials found with the fire watch itself: In June they were discovered to be understaffed by two contractors and the five contractors that were on-site were using cellphones to communicate instead of the required radios.

“The repair costs reflect the complexity of the building’s life safety systems,” DGS spokesperson Jessie says of the scale and scope of the system faults that had to be repaired. “Every floor contains interconnected fire alarms, sprinkler systems, mechanical equipment, and emergency systems that must all work together. Repairs are not isolated fixes. They require testing, coordination, and integration across hundreds of devices throughout the building to ensure the system functions as one.”

Jessie notes sourcing some of the aging building’s specialized parts “can extend timelines and cost.” 

FEMS declined to comment when asked for more information about inspections, the fire watch plan, elevator issues, and if there were plans to inform D.C. government employees or the public about the building’s safety issues.

“I used to work at 441,” Lewis George said of the Marion Barry Building during her January committee oversight hearing. “I don’t know how that building is still functioning and people are still functioning in it.”

D.C. government employee Zachary Love alleged during the same hearing that the building is rife with other “serious safety” issues, from roaches that have “fallen from the ceiling” onto employees, to the elevators. Love and other D.C. government employees have testified before the council as recently as two years ago with detailed complaints about having to pry themselves out of stuck elevators, and worse, elevators dropping with passengers trapped inside.

“To clarify, there have been no elevator ‘falls,’” says Jessie, when asked for details about the number of incidents. “Modern elevator systems include multiple built in safety redundancies designed to prevent that type of incident.”

“In some cases, elevators may temporarily malfunction or stop operating as intended, which can require assistance from building engineers or emergency personnel,” she says. “When an issue is reported through the elevator call system, notifications are received immediately and the elevator is taken out of service until it is inspected and cleared for operation.”

The Marion Barry Building hosts a staggering 14 elevators, all of which are currently being fitted with new doors and key components, which is expected to be completed by this fall, according to DGS. The department is currently seeking to replace and upgrade more elevator equipment, but funding for this expanded project may be in jeopardy as Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed a 36 percent reduction to DGS’ municipal buildings maintenance budget for fiscal year 2027. This comes at a time when elevator repair costs and lead times in aging buildings across the U.S. are mounting, as mechanics in the niche industry retire and parts must increasingly be custom-made if they can be found at all.

Councilmember Lewis George tells City Paper she was “disappointed” by the mayor’s proposed cuts, which, she says, “will further limit DGS’s ability to prevent and repair facilities issues across all government buildings, including those in dire disrepair like the Marion Barry Building.”

The exterior of the Marion Barry Building--a gray office building with many windows--seen from across the street. Cars are parked along the road, and the sun shines in a blue, partly cloudy sky.
The Marion Barry Building. Photo credit: Darrow Montgomery

‘The hands and feet of the District’

The Marion Barry Building houses offices for dozens of D.C. government agencies, including the State Board of Education and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, and used to house many more when the Wilson Building was closed for repairs

Originally named One Judiciary Square, the building is also a bustling center for D.C. residents. A destination for protests and parades, it has also operated as a polling place and hosted press conferences for the Metropolitan Police Department and Attorney General. Its council chambers are sometimes converted to cooling and heating centers, and the whole building was even considered as a bargaining chip for the RFK Stadium deal. Five years after the D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson proposed renaming the 441 after the late Marion Barry Jr., Bowser, and former first lady Cora Masters Barry hung a large mural in the lobby illustrating the former mayor’s legacy. 

The 12-story building has also been an expensive one in the District’s portfolio. The city spent $230 million over 20 years to lease, then finally purchase, the property. And despite improvement projects such as Pepco’s $7.5 million 2012 green energy retrofit, 441 still ranked in the top five most energy-inefficient D.C. buildings the next year. It has also been plagued by a variety of safety issues for more than a decade, with repeated inspector general reports finding the security screening could be foiled by people slipping around via the food court. 

Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto, who chairs the council’s public safety committee, declined to comment on the latest safety issues plaguing the Marion Barry building and referred City Paper to the Department of Buildings, where a DOB spokesperson declined to comment and referred the City Paper back to DGS.

“I think there is an impact most importantly to staff morale,” Marion Barry Building employee Love said during his January 2026 testimony. “Fire alarms and basic occupational safety are a cost of doing business, and if it is true that we are the hands and feet of the District government, then we are entitled to a minimum level of safety.”