Two years after the FBI arrested DC Councilmember Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8), jurors on Tuesday heard opening statements in the federal government’s bribery case against him.
The trial began Sept. 15 in US District Court, where prosecutors and White’s attorneys showed the same jurors clips of secretly recorded meetings. But each side told the jury that those images proved very different things.
The government says the videos document a straightforward exchange of cash for contracts. White’s defense says they show no such bargain. They acknowledge that White accepted money from a longtime associate, but they say he did not agree to steer District contracts and did no more than ask city officials about their status.
That dispute, whether the money was given and accepted in return for White pushing through contracts, is expected to define the trial.
The Charge
White has pleaded not guilty to one count of bribery under federal law. Prosecutors allege that in June 2024 he agreed to accept $156,000, calculated as a three-percent share of approximately $5.2 million in contracts, in exchange for pressuring officials at the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) to extend violence-intervention work held by two companies.
The businessman behind those companies was Allieu Kamara, a longtime White associate who was cooperating with the FBI. According to the indictment, Kamara paid White $35,000 in four cash installments on June 26, July 17, July 25 and Aug. 9, 2024. The FBI recorded those meetings.
The defense identified Kamara in court Tuesday as White’s brother-in-law, saying he was married to White’s sister, according to WJLA. Defense Attorney Warren Kohlman said that made Kamara’s set up of White “almost Biblical,” arguing that the Councilmember’s actions, such as checking on Kamara’s contracts, were part of constituent services. Kamara, they said, set White up as a way to get out of his own legal troubles.
White was arrested Aug. 18, 2024 and a federal grand jury indicted him the following month. The D.C. Council expelled him by a unanimous vote in February 2025, but because he had not been convicted, he remained eligible to run for the vacant seat. Ward 8 voters returned him to office in a July 2025 special election. A felony conviction would again make him ineligible to serve. The charge carries a statutory maximum of 15 years in prison, although a first-time offender would ordinarily face substantially less under federal sentencing guidelines.
Why the Case Took Two Years
The long wait resulted from an unusually distant initial trial date, White’s replacement of his attorneys and a later government production of additional documents. There was also substantial pretrial litigation taking place in between.
In November 2024, Judge Rudolph Contreras set trial for Jan. 12, 2026. At the time, White’s recently appointed federal public defenders asked for the time to prepare, citing their existing trial schedules and a planned leave of absence. Then, three months before the trial, in October 2025, White replaced his legal team and retained veteran trial attorney Warren Gary Kohlman. The new lawyer sought a continuance so he could master the case and provide effective representation. Contreras moved the trial from January to March 2026 over the government’s objection.
A second continuance pushed the case from March to September. Contreras’s May 15 opinion says that delay came after a government document production. During the extended pretrial period, White filed two motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing in part that prosecutors had not adequately alleged an official act and that four alleged payments had improperly been combined into one charge. Contreras denied both motions and ruled on a series of disputes over what evidence the jury may hear.
In other words, much of the delay was sought to give successive defense teams time to prepare, while the last postponement was connected to newly produced government material. Because White was released while awaiting trial and his attorneys requested or accepted the continuances, the two-year interval does not by itself indicate a violation of his speedy-trial rights.
What Happened Sept. 15
White arrived at the federal courthouse Tuesday morning for arguments before a jury selected after two days of questioning. The court seated 12 jurors and two alternates, nine women and five men. The selection process took longer than anticipated and pushed opening statements from Monday to Tuesday.
Both sides used excerpts from the FBI recordings in their presentations. Prosecutors told jurors the conversations and cash payments demonstrate bribery. White’s attorneys countered that the government cannot prove the required quid pro quo. They said White did not steer either contract and argued that contacting officials merely to inquire about a contract’s status is not, by itself, an illegal official act.
The defense has also signaled in court filings and jury selection that it may argue entrapment, contending that the government induced White to commit an offense he otherwise would not have committed. Prosecutors are expected to rely heavily on Kamara, the recorded meetings, FBI agents and District officials. White’s attorneys are expected to attack Kamara’s credibility and distinguish political constituent service from an agreement to misuse public office.
Contreras has reserved roughly two weeks for the case plus deliberations. Prosecutors estimate they will need five or six trial days to present their evidence; the defense expects to need one or two. Testimony and the full recordings, rather than the excerpts chosen for Tuesday’s openings, will determine which account the jury accepts.
Meanwhile, DC Council is set to meet Wednesday, It is unclear whether T. White will attend. Although he was re-elected to represent Ward 8, he was stripped of his Committee Chair. Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen (D) told tthe DC Politics Hour that T. White “is fairly isolated at the council.” He said it has been a challenge not only for the council but also for the city “that is going to have huge repercussions.” Fortunately, there are perhaps two weeks and a big decision until the District could finally be able to move past this issue, which has loomed over our political situation for years.
