As D.C. Prepares To Implement a Vaccine Mandate, Matt Gaetz Tries To Block It

Gaetz has introduced a bill nullifying D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's order requiring people to be vaccinated to visit bars, restaurants, gyms, and other indoor venues.


Just days before Washington, D.C. is set to implement its vaccine mandate, congressional Republicans are moving to block it.

On Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) introduced a bill that would nullify D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's order requiring people to show proof of vaccination before entering bars, restaurants, gyms, and other indoor public venues.

Starting Saturday, the mayor's order says, people 12 years or older will need at least one COVID-19 vaccination shot in order to visit these businesses. Come February 15, they'll have to have the full two shots.

The hope is that barring the unvaccinated from much of public life will encourage them to get the jab.

"Vaccine requirements have resulted in more persons who were vaccine hesitant deciding to get vaccinated, thereby protecting themselves, those with whom they come into contact, and helping maintain hospital capacity," the order says.

Republicans on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform sent Bowser a letter this week arguing that her mandate would not be effective at preventing the spread of the omicron variant and urging her to withdraw the order.

"Like the Democrat lockdowns of 2020, the latest left-wing vaccine passport fad will not prevent the virus from spreading," says the letter. "This sweeping mandate, however, will harm the District's economic recovery and lock many Americans out of their capital city."

To prevent those economic harms, Gaetz's bill would nullify both the order issued by Bowser last month and any "substantially similar" orders from the mayor.

Thanks to D.C.'s home rule arrangement, which makes Congress the ultimate legislative authority over the city, Gaetz and his 19 Republican co-sponsors have the power to invalidate such rules. Democratic majorities in both chambers all but guarantee that's not going to happen.

The best Gaetz's bill could do is prompt some reflection among city officials about whether their vaccine requirements will actually do any good.

Like just about every COVID mandate that has emanated from D.C.'s city hall, this vaccine requirement is a mess of arbitrary exemptions and unexplained particulars.

Bowser's order bars the unvaccinated from eating inside restaurants. They are, however, allowed to grab a takeaway order. You don't need to be vaccinated to attend a service at your local church. But you would have to be vaccinated in order to attend a non-religious event in the same church building.

City officials have not always been forthcoming about the order's details. Its initial text, for example, was totally silent on whether it applied to museums. (Washington has more than a few of those.) Deputy Mayor John Falcicchio clarified just this week that they're not covered.

Bowser's order technically allows for religious exemptions to its vaccine requirements, but the mayor hasn't given much guidance on how this would work in practice. "I don't know exactly what they're going to show other than attestation from themselves that they have a religious objection," Bowser said at a press conference last week. When I asked the mayor's office whether businesses had to honor the city's religious exemption, they pointed me to an FAQ that doesn't address that question.

Meanwhile, the number of new cases being reported in D.C. is falling fast. Public health experts predict that this latest wave will subside quickly over the next week or so across the East Coast. Requiring that people have at least one shot to eat inside a restaurant come Saturday but not to mingle in a museum isn't going to change that trajectory.

Gaetz's bill is doomed to fail, and the congressman is not a great champion of any cause. The pushback he's giving to D.C.'s vaccine requirements is still appreciated.

NEXT: 'We' Didn't Increase the Debt. Politicians, Congress, and Bureaucrats Did.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just days before Washington, D.C. is set to implement its vaccine mandate, congressional Republicans are moving to block it.

    Surely violating the rights of tyrant association.

    1. The only thing scarier than hearing "I come in peace" is hearing "it's for your safety"

      1. Dollars making online job to work in part-time whenever you want and start making more dollars from home. Last month I have got my 3rd paycheck of $17531 have and I gave this only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. Easy to do work and easy Hi to join also. Everybody can now get this and start making real cash simply by going to this website.

        ==>=> JOBS NET 1

    2. Two separate questions
      A) whether such a mandate is tyranical - I will let others debate that question
      B) The omicron variant is now the dominant strain. The vaccines are only marginally effective and then only marginally effective for less than one or two months.
      Further we are now at the tail end of the 3rd major wave. Further, natural immunity is vastly superior to the vaccine immunity. In summary, the vaccine mandate is going to have near zero impact on the trajectory of covid pandemic.

      The libertarian site supporting left-wing tyrants, and hating right-wing freedom fighters.

  2. "We're hoping to punish people until they comply with our wishes."

    Fuck off. I want to go cough on these people now.

    1. Coughing might not transmit anything.

      You’d be better off defecating on their shoes. Not only is it gross, but then they’d have to walk around barefoot for the rest of the day.

  3. But you would have to be vaccinated in order to attend a non-religious event in the same church building.

    Mask-wearing is a religious event. Prove me wrong.

    1. Embrace secular sharia.


      (Don't miss the bit of sharp but bleak humor near the end – “If this changes the discourse in the US, where masks are being unnecessarily politicized, then that’s a bonus,” says Mobarak.)

  4. When the failure of your vaccine is being blamed on the unvaccinated...

    1. It’s worse than a failure, it’s positively dangerous.


  5. Hope Matt gaetz his wish.

    1. That'd be a Change.

  6. Can someone remind me which of the resident lefties bought in completely to the “Gaetz is a pedophile” narrative that was destroyed a few weeks ago?

    1. Shrike is the main one.

      1. turd is ever ready to blame others for his assholery.

        1. It’s always projection with libs.

      2. His projection knows no bounds.

        1. There's a pedo joke in there, but I'm going to leave it alone.

          Like Biden should do with children's hair.

  7. Jeff, sarc, and Mike will be here shortly to call him a rapist in defense of the democrats.

    1. Ironic, since sarc molested his own daughter and shreek is a pedophile who posted hardcore child porn. But let them tell you that Gerry Studds was a gay rights icon and Al Franken was innocent.

      1. Don't let Jeff off here, he's been fully in support of allowing illegal alien child rapists into the US no questions asked.

        1. Good Lord. You are all disgusting.

          1. For pointing put something you actually said?

          2. One might wonder why so many others treat them with such contempt. Not Jeffy.

            1. I don't wonder why bullies bully.

            2. Accusing someone of molesting his own daughter is sick and depraved and wrong even around here. Would you appreciate such slander?

              1. He doesn't have a daughter. Everything he says, everything he posts, is a lie. He's a troll, and so he gets rolled.

  8. Matt Gaetz? The Matt Gaetz? I was just talking about him this morning. About how unfair it is that people are calling him a pedophile because he paid for a 17-year-old to have sex with him. God! What an obvious set up by the FBI. Does anyone know who exactly this supposed 17-year-old is and how long has she been a part of the FBI? Further, where exactly is Hunter’s laptop and how did he arrange for the FBI to entrap this wonderful antiwar Congressman?

    1. We know you were shrike.

    2. It's just too bad he didn't actually have sex with a 17 year old like Gerry Studds did, then you would have to sing his praises.

      Also, remember when you posted hardcore child pornography at and got your first Sarah Palin's Buttplug sock account banned, shreek? Haha. Good times.

  9. Can we stop talking about my first favorite person for a second and start talking about my second favorite person? Namely, Joe Rogan. I have to say his style of debate is the same one that I apply as a gay, Black conservative. First, I call for evidence. Then, when the evidence comes back, I refute the source. I mean, what a non-partisan truthteller! We should just burn obvious DNC-inspired journals like Nature and Science and just rely on the Joe Rogan podcast for our daily dose of epidemiology and epistemology. Ayahuasca anyone?

    1. My favorite part is where Joe maybe realizes that life is difficult and that there are hard choices that involve weighing risk and reward. And by “hard choices” I mean my erection when I think of Donald Trump and by “risk reward” I mean my chances of dying when thinking about Trump while performing autoerotic asphyxiation.

      1. If by "Trump" you mean "the kiddie porn I linked to from the dark web and got my account banned at", shreek.

    2. That is funny that you brought this up. I was just watching Rogan's interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He brought up the same stuff there - trying to claim that the risk of myocarditis in young men was higher with the vaccine than with the virus itself. And to try to prove this, he cited a study which showed that young men were more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine than to wind up in the hospital from COVID. Dr. Gupta tried to point out to him that if he wanted to explore the risk associated with myocarditis, that that was a faulty comparison - one should look at myocarditis risk for vaccine vs. virus, or one should look at hospitalization risk for vaccine vs. virus, but comparing myocarditis risk for vaccine vs. hospitalization risk for virus was an invalid comparison. But Rogan would have none of it. He was absolutely convinced that the risk of myocarditis for young men for the vaccine was much higher for the vaccine and he tried to badger Dr. Gupta to adopt his point of view. This was completely obvious to me when I saw it. Based on what I have seen so far, anyway, it is just not true that Joe Rogan is some neutral interviewer having "free-wheeling discussions". He definitely has an opinion that he tries to inject into his interviews.

      1. You really do have weird allies. All of you seem to have certain proclivities.

      2. And which media figure doesn't?
        Also, if the risk of myocarditis (which almost always requires hospitalization to treat) is higher than your risk of hospitalization, it only is logical to hypothesize that makes your risk of myocarditis from the virus to be lower than your risk from the vaccine. How the fuck do you think you treat myocarditis?

        1. Also, if the risk of myocarditis (which almost always requires hospitalization to treat) is higher than your risk of hospitalization, it only is logical to hypothesize that makes your risk of myocarditis from the virus to be lower than your risk from the vaccine. How the fuck do you think you treat myocarditis?

          Myocarditis does not almost always result in hospitalization. There are mild cases and there are severe cases, like with most illnesses.

          Reference 1: The risk of myocarditis from the virus is about 4 times larger than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. Furthermore, pericarditis and other arrhythmias were observed associated with the virus, but not with the vaccine. This study was on all adults 16 and older.

          Reference 2: The risk of myocarditis from the virus is about the same as the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine, except maybe the Moderna vaccine is worse. This was a study of all adults.

          Reference 3: The risk of myocarditis from the virus is about 6 times higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. This was also a study of all adults.

          So the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is either the same or lower than the risk of myocarditis from the virus.

          1. But have you factored in the risk of getting the virus and if those studies were on a variant prior to Omnicron. These studies are all adults, but the emphasis and risk for myocarditis have been young men. So it is quite possible despite these studies that the risk of getting myocarditis for a 20-year-old male is higher from getting the vaccine than from the combined likelihood of first getting Omnicron and then developing Myocarditis from it.

        2. Also:

          And which media figure doesn't?

          Well, Joe Rogan has been praised around here as a more "honest broker" when it comes to news and information. I did not find his presentation to be more honest.

          1. Considering you’d never heard of Joe Rogan a couple months ago you sure have strong feelings about him.

            Feelings that just happen to align 100% with the progressive narrative about him.

            Hey Jeffy, how much time have you actually spent listening to his podcast I wonder. Not really, I don’t really wonder.

            1. I watched an hour of his discussion with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And in that hour I saw him not act as some neutral interviewer. He would argue with him, cut him off, and just not let the myocarditis subject drop until he got some sort of validation from Dr. Gupta that he was right. He constructed this comically false equivalence between individuals who FEEL protected from the virus because they got the vaccine, and young kids who FEEL protected from the virus just because they are young and statistically unlikely to get very sick, and why can't both FEELINGS be equivalent?? Well, no, one has a much different physical basis than the other. One is based on physical antibodies, the other is based on statistics and chance. On this subject Joe Rogan was demanding validation for his viewpoint from someone with the imprimatur of a doctoral credential. So no I did not consider him to be some sort of honest broker searching for truth.

              1. You chose the interview with the CNN medical taking head where Joe was upset because they constantly lied about him taking horse ddecoder? And have since judged every other guest he has ever had based on that one hour of you emotionally defending a cnn talking head?


          2. And this is jeff lying again. Jeff dismissed two different doctors with long resumes and credentials merely for appearing on Rogan. This is Dr Malone and Dr McCullough. Jeff didn't know their actual resumes he simply dismissed them and the dozens of citations they used simply for appearing on Rogan

            Jeff is an ignorant liar.

      3. Wall of text rage post from Lefty Jeffy. He really doesn’t like Joe Rogan.

        Hey Lying Jeffy, what were your positions when these interviews were discussed here at the time they happened?

        1. Notice jeff doesn't discuss the guests or the cited data they provided on the show. He attacks Rogan.

  10. Can I just tell you what a relief it is that Reason writers have stopped talking about Trump for two seconds and have finally come around to the obvious truth that the GOP is the obvious vehicle to ride off on to the brave libertarian agenda that we all see being advanced by the Trump appointees on the Supreme Court. Thank God for those guys!

    1. You are really terrible at this shrike.

      1. You’re right. I don’t know how to sufficiently express my support for the lIbertarian agenda of the GOP. What do I have to do to better demonstrate my support for Trump and to debunk the fraud of the 2020 election? Charge a cop who has a loaded gun pointed at me? Has it really come to that?

        What I’m trying to say is: When is Civil War Part Deux scheduled to start and how can I find the local chapter of the Proud Boys with the highest percentage of arse spelunkers like Milo Yiannopoulos?

        1. Youre bad at parody. You are terrible at classical liberalism and libertarianism.

          Step one is to stop the pedophilia and actually get educated.

          1. The left can't meme. Footage at 11.

        2. Jesus, reading through your sad attempts has been wildly embarrassing. Good lord you are bad at this.

  11. By February there'll be more people having vaccine reactions than sick from Covid-19.

  12. Meanwhile, the number of new cases being reported in D.C. is falling fast.

    See? Her mask mandate is already working.

    1. Imagine had it been a double mask mandate!

  13. Ha! Spokane used its convention center as a 'temporary warming' shelter for two weeks and the uh, people "experiencing homelessness" did $90,000 in damage. Their "behavioral issues" resulted in broken toilet seats, mirrors smashed, holes in walls and general mayhem and destruction. Now they're running into tensions with finding them a new location because... no one wants $90,000 in damage to their place.

    How progressives ruined American cities indeed.

    1. Send 'em to Inslee's house.

    2. That is unfortunate that the convention center was damaged.

      What is the proper solution here, in your view, with what to do with these homeless people?

      1. My solution is at least 6 of them move into your mom’s basement with you.

        1. What is your actual proposal?

          1. Teach you to use an "exit bag" and then let them move into your place?

      2. Make them feel unwelcomed.

        1. So that they leave and become someone else's problem? Is that the idea?

      3. Most of them chose homelessness. Let them live how they chose dumbass.

      4. Round them up and let them fight to the death in the coliseum for the amusement of the workers.

      5. The solution is to incarcerate, shelter, or hospitalize them, according to their situation.

        The mental can be hospitalized, then sheltered, then transitioned to success.

        The poor can just be helped, as needed.

        The rest are just junkies and scum. Incarcerate them as a public nuisance.

  14. Make a list of other vaccines that are required to visit a restaurant, bar, gym, and other indoor venues.

    1. Sorry Kirkland not your day.

    2. Say there was an HIV vaccine. Would bars and nightclubs be justified in mandating entry to only vaccinated?

      No, of course not. A business can’t discriminate based on vaccine status.

      HIV is 100% fatal without treatment. Almost all cases come from people who are gay. Many meet in bars and nightclubs. Yet, for some reason, HIV+ is a protected class.

      Keep that in mind, the next time someone tells you why we should have mandatory vaccination for a disease that doesn’t affect most of the population.

  15. "The pushback he's giving to D.C.'s vaccine requirements is still appreciated"

    . . . by disaffected, powerless, antisocial, right-wing misfits.

    Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as your betters permit, that is. In this case, that means get vaccinated or stay home.

    1. Every DC restaurant where I have acquaintances, other than two live music venues, has said that they aren't going to bother comparing names on vax cards to IDs. This includes the basketball arena.

      All those clingers will still be able to get a drink, a bite to eat at Ben's Chili Bowl, or place a wager at the sportsbook, after Monday (depending on how the removal of the potential snow goes. DC sucks at handling inclement weather, and shuts down for an inch or two).

  16. So let's break it down.
    "Vaccine requirements have resulted in more persons who were vaccine hesitant deciding to get vaccinated, thereby protecting themselves,

    Mostly true

    ... those with whom they come into contact,

    blatantly false

    ...and helping maintain hospital capacity,"

    questionable at best as it seems to be location dependent.

  17. I don't know he and MTG gave a great presser a few days ago about Ray Epps and what really happened on 1/6.

    1. I am curious to see how this Ray Epps thing will play out.

      I am of the opinion that the "Ray Epps Was FBI Provocateur On 1/6" is a bunch of baloney. But let's see how long the baloney gets recirculated among MAGA world and what it mutates into.

      1. Or we could live in an open society and we could all know why this man that’s on video repeatedly encouraging people, starting the night of January 5th, to break into the capital, hasn’t been arrested and tried for his crimes.

        You do realize that there’s multiple videos of him, where he’s clearly recognizable as the same person, right? You wouldn’t just comment about him being part of MAGA rumor while being completely ignorant of the topic, would you?

        1. Do you think he was an FBI provocateur?

          1. I like how you condition this to be only the FBI so you can back out at a later date if he worked for a different agency.

            The DoJ already had a plea agreement for a woman who stepped roughly 10 meters over the imaginary line at the Capitol grounds outside. Epps was much further in on video. So maybe they are just sexist.

    1. How aroused are you?

      1. I am sad. I would have preferred no one would have even come close to committing sedition, if that is truly what he was doing.

        1. They were charged with it, due to political pressure to charge something. But you've already convicted them.

        2. They’re not accused of sedition. They’re accused of conspiracy.

          Conspiracy is a charge akin to talking about fucking the boss’s daughter. You don’t have to do anything other than talk, but it ruffled feathers. Talking isn’t really a crime, unless you’ve got a jackass for a judge.

          Note that they’re not accused of sedition or weapons use or insurrection or attempted murder. Just TALKING shit.

    2. "Rhodes, who is not believed to have entered the Capitol but was seen with several of the defendants gathered outside on Capitol grounds both before and after they entered the building, has denied any involvement in urging the group to storm the building and has said he believes it was wrong for the members of the group to do so."


      Weren't we told that, despite encouraging attendees to break into the Capitol, Ray Epps did not himself enter, and that is why he was not arrested and charged? Oath Keepers guy didn't enter either, but charged with seditious conspiracy.

      That's interesting, innit?

      1. "Several members of the group are alleged to have stashed heavy weapons at a hotel in Virginia and positioned a so-called "Quick Reaction Force" that would come to Washington in the event of significant violence or if former President Donald Trump invoked the Insurrection Act."

        Perhaps this is a key difference between Ray Epps and Rhodes, making the two situations not directly comparable.

        1. Alleged. Vs on video.

          And we already know fbi agents were using informants for oath keepers like in Michigan.

          How many times have you gotten off on this hope of yours?

        2. So, they're charged for not doing something but they MIGHT have in an alternate version of reality?

    3. And by the way jeff... you dont find it odd the DoJ/FBI went from no conspiracy in testimony to Congress in August to sedition charges after 4 members flipped after 11 months of solitary confinement and reported abuse?

      I'm sure that never crossed your mind.

      A weapon less sedition.

      Meanwhile antifa actively does all of the charges pursued against the Oath Keepers in this indictment. Training, collection of weapons, use of weapons against government forces, encrypted messaging apps... and no charges. Even after they took over multiple blocks in various cities.

      You dont find that strange jeff? Or that this puts the trials right before the election? That doesn't seem political to you jeff?

  18. "the congressman is not a great champion of any cause"

    The obligatory virtue signal by shitting on the guy before mildly praising something good he did.

    1. That criticism of Gaetz is exceedingly mild.

  19. It's exceedingly unnecessary and had nothing to do with the article. It's milquetoast attempt to signal to others that they don't support the guy, but they're obliged to say this.

    1. You're right, the criticism shouldn't have been so oblique. I would have written:

      "Gaetz doesn't seem particularly devoted to any cause except himself. This is the guy who chose to hire a bunch of comms people as congressional aides rather than content experts. He is more likely to be found at Fox News or Mar a Lago rather than in the halls of Congress. This whole thing is probably just another PR stunt. But on the off chance that he is serious on this matter- best of luck to him!"

      1. So, why should anybody do anything you or Reason would remotely support if you'll just shit on them for doing so?

  20. Is this really anything other than a request for poor gullible people to send him money?

  21. Did Rep. Gaetz include his "14 is the new age of consent" rider?

    1. Gee, who does not see anything not on MSNBC?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.