SEND HER BACK! Crowd ERUPTS Rashida Tlaib is KICKED OUT After She ATTACKS Byron Donalds in Congress

WASHINGTON — A House Oversight Committee hearing intended to examine governance in the nation’s capital instead descended into one of the most contentious public confrontations on Capitol Hill this year, underscoring the depth of partisan division over crime, homelessness and immigration — and the increasingly volatile tone of congressional debate.

The clash unfolded as lawmakers sparred over Republican-led legislation aimed at overriding laws passed by the District of Columbia’s local government. Democrats argued that the measures mischaracterized the city and undermined home rule, while Republicans framed them as necessary responses to rising crime, fiscal mismanagement and federal immigration policy failures.

Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, delivered an impassioned defense of Washington, D.C., warning that the rhetoric used by some of her colleagues amounted to defamation of the city and its residents. She described the capital as a place of families, neighborhoods and civic pride, not the dystopian landscape often portrayed in political messaging.

“I see people enjoying the city, its monuments and its communities,” Ms. Tlaib said, arguing that such portrayals erase the lived experiences of residents and reinforce harmful narratives. Drawing on her background in Detroit, she compared the language used about Washington to rhetoric that once stigmatized her hometown.

Ms. Tlaib also raised concerns about what she described as an abuse of congressional power, warning that federal intervention in local governance could become a template replicated nationwide. She linked the debate to broader challenges, including housing affordability, homelessness and mental health, arguing that these problems cannot be “policed away.”

Her remarks came as the committee reviewed multiple bills that would overturn local D.C. policies, some of which were passed without consultation with city officials. During the hearing, District leaders confirmed they had not been asked for input, including on legislation that would eliminate the city’s independently elected attorney general — a position approved by more than 70 percent of D.C. voters.

The attorney general testified that the office plays a central role in protecting residents from wage theft, housing violations and consumer fraud, and warned that removing it would weaken accountability. Democrats framed the move as an attack on democratic self-governance rooted in the civil rights movement.

The hearing took a dramatic turn when Ms. Tlaib used the term “fascist” to describe what she characterized as a broader political takeover of local authority. Representative Byron Donalds, Republican of Florida, sharply objected, calling the comparison offensive and “way out of line.” The exchange quickly devolved into raised voices, procedural interruptions and repeated calls for “regular order” from the chair.

The confrontation illustrated a growing problem on Capitol Hill: substantive policy disagreements increasingly colliding with incendiary language. Mr. Donalds argued that equating elected lawmakers with authoritarian regimes trivialized historical atrocities and shut down meaningful debate.

After the dispute, Mr. Donalds shifted the focus to immigration, delivering a detailed account of a congressional visit to the southern border in early 2021. He accused the Biden administration of dispersing unaccompanied migrant children across the country to relieve overcrowded facilities and limit media scrutiny.

According to Mr. Donalds, children were transported by bus from border regions to cities such as San Diego without transparency or adequate oversight. He described the policy as reckless and said it placed long-term burdens on local governments unprepared to absorb the costs.

Mayors from major cities, including Denver and New York, have acknowledged the financial strain created by the arrival of large numbers of migrants. During previous hearings, some officials cited billions of dollars in emergency spending, though critics noted that few could provide precise figures when pressed.

Republicans argue that such expenditures illustrate the downstream effects of federal border policy, while Democrats counter that cities are grappling with a humanitarian challenge that requires federal support, not political scapegoating.

The episode encapsulated a broader reality: Congress is struggling to reconcile sharply different narratives about governance, responsibility and the role of federal power. For Democrats, the debate centers on protecting local autonomy and resisting what they view as fear-driven politics. For Republicans, it is about accountability, public safety and fiscal limits.

As the hearing adjourned, little consensus had been reached. What remained was the image of a legislative body increasingly defined not by deliberation, but by confrontation — where procedural norms strain under the weight of ideological conflict.

For Washington’s residents, the outcome may prove consequential. Beyond the theatrics, Congress retains the authority to reshape the city’s laws, budgets and institutions. Whether that power is exercised with restraint or rhetoric may determine not only the future of the District, but the tone of national governance itself.