D.C. Sister City Act Mandates Ending International Partnerships with 'Adversary' Nations Within 180 Days

This legislation, officially named the District of Columbia Sister City Integrity Act, is a direct move to align D.C.’s local international relationships with federal foreign policy. Simply put, it completely prohibits the District of Columbia from starting any new “Sister City” partnerships with cities or regions located in countries the U.S. government defines as a “foreign adversary.” They are using the exact same definition the Department of Defense uses for “covered nations” in its federal contracting rules (Title 10, Section 4872(f)(2)).

The Mandate: Clearing the Roster

This isn't just about blocking future deals; it's about tearing up existing ones. If D.C. currently has a Sister City agreement with a jurisdiction in one of these adversary countries, that agreement must be terminated immediately. Specifically, the District must end the partnership by the agreement’s existing expiration date or within 180 days after this Act becomes law, whichever comes first. For D.C. residents and cultural groups who have built years of exchange programs—whether educational, artistic, or professional—with these specific cities, those connections are now on a very short clock.

Federal Funding as Leverage

Here’s where the federal oversight gets real. The Act introduces a significant funding restriction: D.C. cannot use any Federal funds for its general international liaison and outreach services until it sends a certification to the President. This certification must confirm that D.C. is fully compliant with the new rules—meaning no new adversary partnerships and all old ones terminated. This provision essentially uses the threat of withholding federal money to enforce compliance, adding a new layer of federal control over D.C.’s local diplomatic activities.

What This Means for Local Autonomy and Exchange

For the average D.C. resident, this bill might seem like distant foreign policy, but it has a local impact. Sister City programs often fund student exchanges, cultural festivals, and professional development trips, providing accessible international exposure. By mandating the termination of these specific relationships, the Act restricts D.C.’s ability to independently pursue cultural diplomacy and local trade opportunities, even if those activities are non-political. It effectively overrides the District’s local government decisions regarding international engagement, ensuring that D.C.’s cultural exchanges strictly follow federal security priorities, whether local leaders agree or not. This is a clear example of federal legislation reaching down to dictate the terms of local, community-level international relationships.