HR-3660-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Sponsored by W. Steube (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) from receiving any federal funding until the WMATA Compact — a multi-jurisdictional agreement among Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. — is amended to rename WMATA as the "Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access" (WMAGA) and rename Metrorail as the "Trump Train."
Who benefits
Supporters of honoring President Trump through public infrastructure naming. Potentially, advocates who believe the funding condition would pressure WMATA to undertake broader governance or operational changes as part of any compact renegotiation.
Who is hurt
WMATA riders — approximately 600,000 daily boardings — who depend on federal funding for transit operations and capital projects. Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. governments, which would face pressure to amend an interstate compact. Commuters and residents in the Washington metro area who rely on Metrorail and Metrobus service. Transit workers whose jobs depend on WMATA's financial stability. Taxpayers in the WMATA jurisdiction who may face higher local costs if federal funding is withheld.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress has broad authority over federal spending and may attach conditions to federal grants, a principle affirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). They contend that renaming the system would honor a sitting president and that WMATA, as a federally subsidized authority, should be responsive to federal priorities — and that the funding condition is a legitimate exercise of the congressional spending power to shape how federal dollars are associated with public infrastructure.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that this bill uses federal funding as leverage to coerce an interstate compact — a legal agreement among sovereign states and D.C. — into making a purely cosmetic change unrelated to transit performance, safety, or public benefit. They contend that conditioning hundreds of millions in annual federal transit dollars on a renaming requirement is an improper use of the spending power that could disrupt service for hundreds of thousands of daily riders without any policy justification tied to the funds' purpose.
Constitutional context
Congress's spending power (Art. I, §8) allows it to attach conditions to federal grants, but South Dakota v. Dole (1987) established that conditions must be related to the federal interest in the program. A condition requiring renaming a transit system after a political figure may face challenge as insufficiently related to the federal interest in funding public transportation. The Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering doctrine (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) may also be relevant, as the bill effectively pressures states and D.C. to amend an interstate compact.
Checks and balances
Congress gains leverage over WMATA's operations and the interstate compact through the spending power; the states of Maryland and Virginia, plus D.C., retain authority over the compact itself and cannot be directly compelled to amend it, preserving a structural check on federal coercion.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously attached conditions to federal transportation funding — most notably in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), where a federal highway funding condition tied to the drinking age was upheld — but no directly analogous precedent exists for conditioning transit funds solely on a naming change.