Can the federal government just take a city’s train station? A Trump official hinted at a takeover of Boston’s South Station, citing safety concerns. But Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu and Governor Maura Healey aren’t having any of it, calling it an “authoritarian monopoly” and “political theater.” What do you think this means for local control?
A brewing political storm centers on Boston’s South Station, as a top Trump administration official recently floated the idea of a federal takeover, sparking immediate and fierce backlash from local Massachusetts leaders. The bold suggestion, made during an Amtrak event, positioned the bustling transit hub as potentially facing federal intervention akin to developments in Washington D.C., citing concerns over safety and cleanliness.
Deputy Secretary of Transportation Steven Bradbury emphasized the necessity to address conditions at key stations along the Northeast Corridor. Specifically, he highlighted issues of “cleanliness, crime, safety, and security” at South Station, asserting that the people of Boston deserve a higher standard. His remarks, however, offered no specific details on the mechanism for such a dramatic shift in control or how the Transportation Department would execute these improvements.
Crucially, South Station is not federal property; it is owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), which also supervises its daily operations. This fundamental jurisdictional difference underscores the complexity of any proposed federal intervention, raising significant questions about legal precedent and the boundaries of authority between state and federal entities concerning local infrastructure.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu swiftly denounced the proposition, stating unequivocally that “there’s no legal way for anything like that to happen.” Wu characterized the suggestion as an “authoritarian monopoly” and a stark disregard for established laws and the constitution, which clearly delineate government control. Her strong stance underscored a firm commitment to local sovereignty and the rejection of federal overreach in the city’s critical assets.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey echoed the Mayor’s sentiments, labeling the Trump Administration’s actions as “outrageous, wrong, and having nothing to do with transportation or public safety.” Healey condemned the move as “more political theater” and a “political power grab from Donald Trump,” vehemently asserting that the state would not tolerate interference from the former president, particularly from “the guy who went bankrupt six times.”
Even within labor circles, while acknowledging declining conditions at South Station, the idea of a federal takeover found little support. Dave Stevenson, New England safety and legislative director for SMART Transportation Division, conceded that enhanced policing and security were needed but explicitly stated, “There’s definitely no need for a federal takeover, but we could use some federal money.” This perspective suggests a desire for collaborative federal assistance rather than outright assumption of control.
The public exchange illuminates a broader debate on federal versus local governance and the strategic importance of key transportation hubs like Boston’s South Station. The clear and unified opposition from Boston’s top officials signifies a strong defense against what they perceive as an unauthorized intrusion into local affairs, ensuring that the saga of South Station’s control remains a focal point in the ongoing political discourse.
