Could the DC Statehood Movement be Strengthened in a Second Trump Presidency?

[Frodo]

This article that came out a day after the election results made it clear Trump was returning to the White House for a second term, and lays out everything that can happen for the District of Columbia:

Here's what a second Trump presidency could mean for DC

It made me wonder if Trump could -in his efforts to restrict home rule- paradoxically make the case for the DC statehood movement that home rule is insufficient to protect DC residents from the capriciousness of Congress and the President of the United States with a clarity we haven't seen before.  There is already majority support nationally for DC statehood, after all.  That could increase significantly by the end of his term, affecting congressional support in both chambers.  

[Rhode Islander First, American Second]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

There's also just not a good Constitutional argument for it without really stretching to create loopholes.

I've said it before, but the two acceptable compromises would be a) retrocession to Maryland or b) give the House delegate voting power on the floor.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

What is actually brazenly partisan is for Republicans to decide that its okay for them to win Senate majorities through malapportionment/gerrymandering skews while results show clear preference for Democratic control as is happening now. We need more states to reset the balance in the chamber.

[Lykaon]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

What is actually brazenly partisan is for Republicans to decide that its okay for them to win Senate majorities through malapportionment/gerrymandering skews while results show clear preference for Democratic control as is happening now. We need more states to reset the balance in the chamber.

Gerrymandering they senate? The state lines were drawn over 100 years ago…

[Skill and Chance]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

What is actually brazenly partisan is for Republicans to decide that its okay for them to win Senate majorities through malapportionment/gerrymandering skews while results show clear preference for Democratic control as is happening now. We need more states to reset the balance in the chamber.

Gerrymandering they senate? The state lines were drawn over 100 years ago…

Yes, the states could not have been created with modern political divides in mind.  There are isolated cases of "gerrymandering" in the dividing/admission of states in the interest of various 19th-early 20th century coalitions (most notably Missouri and Maine, North and South Dakota, and the delay in admission of Arizona and New Mexico into the 20th century while surrounding states were admitted decades earlier), but there's no gerrymandered intent today.

If I were designing a political system from scratch today, I would of course try to minimize malapportionment, but the states now have 100+ year old cultural quirks and a tradition of local government from day 1.  States are the fundamental building blocks of our union and state borders matter politically.  It's to both parties' advantage to run in a way that can reasonably win a majority of states, if nothing else to contest the governorships and legislatures which in practice make most of the law.

[Rhode Islander First, American Second]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

What is actually brazenly partisan is for Republicans to decide that its okay for them to win Senate majorities through malapportionment/gerrymandering skews while results show clear preference for Democratic control as is happening now. We need more states to reset the balance in the chamber.

Republicans didn't decide to make it this way, it just so happens to currently work in their favor.

[New World Man]

DC statehood will only happen with a Dem trifecta and a strong senate majority. It should happen though. At a minimum,people of DC should have a vote in congress(as should Puerto Rico).

[Beet]

It looks so brazenly partisan and would set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, we get Republican states split into two in retaliation.

What is actually brazenly partisan is for Republicans to decide that its okay for them to win Senate majorities through malapportionment/gerrymandering skews while results show clear preference for Democratic control as is happening now. We need more states to reset the balance in the chamber.

Republicans didn't decide to make it this way, it just so happens to currently work in their favor.

Right, which is why the Democrats need to be the ones to disrupt the status quo. The Republicans will allow this unfairness to go on forever, for entirely self-serving reasons; but if the shoe was on the other foot they wouldn't settle for it for one minute.

[zorkpolitics]

There should not be a DC city state.
Instead MD and the Congress should follow the example of VA in the 1840s when  the VA part of DC, Arlington and Alexandria counties were returned, retrocession, to VA.  Do the same and return the remaining part of DC to MD.  then redistrict  MD so DC residents vote for a Congressman.  And of course, repeal the 23rd Amendment.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's nonexistent whenever Republicans have a trifecta.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I do wonder if the argument for DC statewide will become significantly weakened if WY and VT surpass DC's population before it becomes a state. One of the big arguments as for why it should be it's own state is because it has a population larger than existing US states, but that argument can't be made if it's population becomes smaller.

This might be pretty unlikely though because DC had very strong growth this past decade according to the census - perhaps it was overestimated, but it's not that shocking when you consider the general rise of urban walkable downtowns, and DC being one of the few genuinely walkable US cities with half decent public transportation.

However, DC's population may become capped by zoning - including the height cap on all buildings.