Rep. Nancy Mace has introduced legislation that would reach directly into Washington, D.C.’s local government and force it to fire its own employees. On January 14, 2026, the South Carolina Republican filed H.R. 7068, the “No Convicts Running the Capital Act,” a measure that would bar the District of Columbia from employing or contracting anyone with a final conviction for a violent or dangerous crime.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It has not passed the House, it has not passed the Senate, and it is not law. At this stage, it is a proposal sitting in committee alongside dozens of other measures.
What the Bill Would Do
H.R. 7068 would prohibit the D.C. government from hiring individuals who have final convictions for crimes of violence or other dangerous offenses. It would also bar the District from awarding contracts to companies controlled by people with violent-crime convictions, or to firms that put such individuals to work on government contracts.
The most striking provision is not about future hiring at all. The bill would require the District to terminate any current employees who fall under the ban, and to cancel existing contracts, within 90 days. That clause would put a hard countdown on the jobs of current D.C. workers if the measure were ever enacted.
Mace introduced a companion measure aimed at the federal government, the “No Violent Criminals in the Federal Workforce Act,” which would apply a similar prohibition to federal employment. Together, the two bills reflect a broader push to keep people with violent records off public payrolls.
Why D.C. Is Different
The District of Columbia is not a state. Although it has a locally elected mayor and council, Congress retains broad authority over its affairs, and D.C. has no voting representation in the Senate. That unusual arrangement is what makes a bill like this possible: a member of Congress from another part of the country can propose dictating who the District is allowed to employ.
For decades, D.C. residents and home-rule advocates have fought to expand the District’s control over its own government. Measures that override local decision-making tend to reignite that fight, and this one is no exception.
Supporters and Critics
Supporters frame the bill as a straightforward public-safety guardrail. The argument is simple: people with final convictions for violent crimes should not be on the public payroll or working on taxpayer-funded contracts.
Critics see something else. To them, the measure is less about safety and more about a member of Congress from South Carolina deciding who the District of Columbia can hire and fire. They point to the 90-day termination clause as especially severe, arguing it would upend the livelihoods of current workers and override local hiring judgment. Civil-rights and second-chance advocates also warn that blanket bans on people with convictions can permanently close off employment for those who have served their sentences.
What This Means for Americans
For now, the practical effect is zero — the bill is one of dozens of measures in committee, and most never reach a floor vote. But the proposal is a window into a recurring tension in American government: who gets to make decisions for the nation’s capital, and whether the people who live and work there have a real say. If the bill ever moved, current D.C. employees would be the ones living under that 90-day clock. The real question is whether it advances out of committee at all.
Stay informed on the stories that matter most. Follow Your Daily Updates on Facebook and bookmark yourdailyupdates.news for breaking news and analysis.