Food delivery company DoorDash says it is pulling its support for a Republican bill in Congress that would have limited D.C.’s ability to write its own tax laws, walking back a position that angered the city’s elected officials and prompted widespread calls for residents to boycott the service.
In a statement provided to The Washington Sun, Max Rettig, DoorDash’s head of global public policy, conceded that the company’s advocacy for the Republican bill was the wrong way to express its concerns with a new delivery fee imposed by the D.C. Council that takes effect Thursday.
“We recognize that working directly with District leaders is the right way to fight for District residents, and that doing otherwise calls into question our commitment to D.C.,” he said.
The political dustup started over the summer, when the council voted to impose a new 20-cent fee on all third-party deliveries. DoorDash unsuccessfully fought the fee in the Wilson Building, but also wrote a letter in support of a bill from Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) that would have required congressional approval for any tax or fee increases approved by the city’s lawmakers.
Trending
“We believe this is a reasonable check against the hastily enacted local taxes and fees that fall hardest on small businesses and the residents who depend on them,” John Horton, the company’s head of North American policy, wrote in the letter.
Comer’s bill — which was approved by the House Oversight Committee but has since stalled — drew furious condemnation from D.C.’s elected officials, including D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who argued that it would impose a “straightjacket on District governance” and “paralyze our tax code.”
Many of those same officials said they were “stunned” that DoorDash supported the bill, given that it touched on an area of particular local sensitivity: increased Republican intervention in local affairs, whether led by the White House or Congress.
In response, Free DC — an advocacy group that has spearheaded protests against Republican interference in the city’s local affairs — launched a campaign encouraging residents to stop using the service.
“This bill is a blatant attack on D.C.’s power in order to support Trump’s grotesque desire to take over the capital,” it said of Comer’s measure.
Free DC also demanded that DoorDash publicly oppose Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, which have impacted delivery drivers in D.C. and other cities. Relatedly, in June, a Venezuelan migrant working for DoorDash was killed when he was hit by a driver being chased by the U.S. Park Police.
In his statement, Rettig reiterated that DoorDash supports the city’s ability to govern itself. He also said that the company was investing $1 million to help local restaurants and would contribute 500,000 free meals to residents in 2027.
But Rettig also reiterated his hope that the council would work to exempt recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits from paying the new delivery fee. According to DoorDash, in 2025 it made 150,000 deliveries to SNAP beneficiaries in D.C., and more than 20% of its deliveries in the city went to low-income communities.
“Our letter of support for [Comer’s bill] came from a place of deep concern about this tax, particularly for D.C.'s most vulnerable residents,” he said. “The delivery tax disproportionately harms SNAP recipients who use these benefits to put food on the table and those with mobility issues, including seniors, who rely on delivery for their groceries and meals.”
Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau, who included the new fee in the city’s 2027 budget, brushed aside those concerns over the summer, saying that revenue raised from the fee would help restore funding for food-assistance and grocery-delivery programs for low-income residents that would otherwise be cut.
In a statement, At-Large Council member Robert White, who is also the Democratic nominee for D.C.’s delegate to Congress, said that DoorDash’s reversal “did not happen in a vacuum.”
“D.C. residents, advocates, and elected leaders made clear that exploiting our lack of representation to overturn a local policy was unacceptable,” he added. “I made clear to DoorDash that withdrawing its support was the starting point for repairing its relationship with our city. They heard that pressure and changed course. Let this be a warning to any company considering the same playbook.”
Author
