D.C.’s fiscal year 2026 budget, which took effect Oct. 1, wrongfully prioritizes policies that benefit large corporations, like the Washington Commanders, while cutting funding for social services, like mental health care, which will disproportionately affect marginalized communities. GW students are generally tuned into federal policies, but there’s a lack of discourse surrounding local policies. As part of the broader D.C. community that interacts with the local economy daily, GW students engage with the local economy daily and need to understand how the proposed 2026 budget will negatively affect D.C. residents, including local GW students, and call for an economic system that better supports all constituents.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser first proposed the FY2026 budget on May 27, which the D.C. Council approved on July 28. The federal payments to D.C. included in the budget request are still awaiting Congressional approval, but the city has been authorized to redistribute its local funds according to the FY2026 budget. Titled “Grow D.C.,” the budget promises to invest in the city’s future by generating new economic activity. But many policies will leave the most vulnerable communities behind, especially when it comes to health care, compounding federal cuts to Medicaid that will go into effect over the next several years. With these changes, it’s going to be up to the community, including GW students, to come together and support one another by volunteering for nonprofits that aid the community, communicating over the phone or in writing with elected officials and raising residents’ awareness about the effects of recent policies.
Supporters of the 2026 budget argue that investing in a new stadium, aesthetic updates downtown and theater renovations will bolster the economy by creating new jobs and attracting more tourists to the city. This could prove to be true and provide economic benefits for the city as a whole, but it doesn’t come without harm to low-income communities. For starters, gentrification of the city is already a growing concern among residents, and prioritizing an influx of wealthy tourists is likely to further impose upon existing communities by replacing affordable housing and small businesses with large-scale corporations and driving up rent prices.
Many community members cannot afford to wait for these potential economic improvements to take place. People need health care, housing and basic necessities now, and many rely on the social services that are set to lose funding. Job growth and overall economic development from city improvements may help the community in the future, but these goals cannot be prioritized over the immediate needs of D.C. residents.
One of the main talking points of the budget is its plan to contribute over a billion dollars to the redevelopment of the RFK Stadium for the Washington Commanders. Supporters of the plan highlight the role it would play in creating new jobs and attracting tourists, whereas others emphasize the fact that funding for the project could be used to improve social services instead. This isn’t the only way the budget plans to spend funds on sports, as tens of millions of dollars were set aside for a new indoor track and gymnastics sports complex adjacent to the RFK stadium.
Furthermore, hundreds of millions of dollars will be going toward the Capital One Arena and Nationals Park in the next two years. The reasoning behind these investments is the hope that they will bring more sports fans to the area, therefore increasing revenue. While this sounds appealing, we must acknowledge where that money is coming from — essential health care services. Despite an increase in the total budget from last year, there is now less funding for various social services. These services are often the only way low-income communities can access the care they need, so defunding them will have immediate and severe consequences.
Further benefiting the already wealthy, the budget gives businesses the ability to appeal “onerous taxation” that may stand in the way of business people investing in commercial property. This benefit is added on top of federal tax breaks passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year. The reality of this situation is that it is only advantageous to well-established, wealthy businesses. Small business owners and low-income residents who already struggle with rent, inflation and stagnant wages are unlikely to benefit. Economic policy such as this signals a trend in the city’s priorities: appeasing investors and large corporations while neglecting the needs of those struggling to afford basic necessities. Rather than reinvesting potential tax revenue into public services, the city is providing a financial cushion to those who need it the least.
Funding for these stadium improvements and tax breaks is taking priority over essential public services. Among the programs on the chopping block is the Child and Adolescent Mobile Psychiatric Service, which serves as an emergency response service for children and teenagers experiencing mental health emergencies, like suicidal or homicidal ideations. Bowser’s budget is cutting more than half of the funding for the 15-year-old program, based on the argument from city officials that school mental health staff are already providing assistance.
But analysts and students alike have said that they believe D.C. schools need the ChAMPS program, and program officials wonder how they will continue to provide services. Over the last decade and a half, this program has provided over 10,000 crisis interventions, proving its usefulness in the community. Despite increased concern about youth mental health, the city pours billions of dollars into nonessential sports renovations while leaving many adolescents without accessible mental health care. With the United States experiencing a nationwide mental health crisis, especially among young people and with cuts to federal mental health programs, now is not the time to limit resources.
Many D.C. residents are also losing their health care plans. The 2026 D.C. budget includes cuts to Medicaid eligibility, so about 25,000 residents will be moved off Medicaid and onto less comprehensive plans. Thousands of others will lose coverage altogether as the budget plans to phase out D.C.’s Health Care Alliance program by 2027. With the federal government already rolling back social support services like Medicaid and SNAP, now is not the time for the district government to make policies that further the class divide but rather provide support for the residents who need it most. Bowser’s FY2026 budget ignores the painful realities of many D.C. residents and adds further challenges.
While stadium renovations and property investments may benefit the city by bringing new economic opportunities and jobs, they do not make up for stripping thousands of citizens of their health care. With this budget, Bowser and the D.C. Council have wrongfully prioritized potential job growth over health care systems that have been proven to work. I believe investing in social services is not only a moral obligation of the D.C. government but also a way to stimulate the economy from the bottom up without causing irreparable damage along the way. As civically oriented community members, GW students should champion local government policies that encourage the development of such services by attending future public meetings and communicating with elected officials.
The city budget may seem far removed from student life, but its impact can be seen as rent rises, peers and community members lose health care coverage, and the values of the city shift. GW students have both the privilege and responsibility of being part of the nation’s capital, so it is essential that we engage with the local government. I urge you to learn more about what’s at stake with the FY2026 proposed budget and to get involved with community service organizations, like Bread for the City or Community of Hope, that work to alleviate some of the challenges coming to the forefront.
Willow Harrington, a sophomore majoring in political science and psychology, is an opinions writer.
