In a move that’s already stirring debate across the nation’s capital, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a series of bills aimed at combating crime in Washington, D.C.—but not without controversy over what many see as a federal intrusion into the city’s self-governance. The legislative push, which unfolded over September 16 and 17, 2025, marks the latest chapter in a long-running tug-of-war over who gets to call the shots in the District of Columbia.
According to CNN, these bills are part of a broader Republican effort to support President Donald Trump’s recent crackdown on crime in the district. Just last month, Trump declared crime in D.C. an emergency, placed the city’s police department under federal control, and ordered the deployment of the National Guard. While the president’s 30-day takeover expired on September 11, he has repeatedly urged Congress to advance what he calls a “Comprehensive Crime Bill.”
The first two bills, passed on September 16, are among more than a dozen being considered by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s actions. The centerpiece, known as the DC Crimes Act and introduced by Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, would sharply curtail the city’s ability to change its own criminal sentencing laws. The act also lowers the age at which youth offenders can be charged and requires the D.C. Attorney General to publish juvenile crime statistics on a public website. The bill cleared the House by a vote of 240 to 179, with 31 Democrats crossing party lines to support it and just one Republican voting against it.
Alongside the DC Crimes Act, the House also passed a separate bill lowering the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults for certain violent offenses to just 14 years old. This measure passed 225 to 203, with eight Democrats joining Republicans in support and one Republican dissenting. Backers argue that these changes are necessary to address what they describe as a surge in violent crime and to empower local law enforcement with stronger tools and clearer mandates.
But not everyone is convinced. Critics, including many city residents and congressional Democrats, say the bills amount to unwarranted federal overreach, stripping away the limited autonomy the District has fought to maintain. According to The Washington Post, the measures would roll back not only police chase restrictions but also eliminate the already minimal say the city has in selecting its local judges—a move that’s raising alarm bells among those who see it as a threat to D.C.’s ability to govern itself.
On September 17, House Republicans doubled down, passing two more D.C.-related bills. One would eliminate the city’s judicial nomination commission, handing the power to nominate judges for D.C. courts directly to the president of the United States. This bill passed by a razor-thin margin of 218 to 211, strictly along party lines. The other bill would allow D.C. police to pursue suspects fleeing in vehicles, unless the officer or their supervisor determines that the chase would pose an unacceptable risk, be futile, or that the suspect could be apprehended by other means. This measure passed 245 to 182, with 29 Democrats joining Republicans in support.
The police chase bill is particularly contentious. Under current D.C. law, police pursuits are tightly regulated to minimize the risk to bystanders and officers alike. The new legislation would relax these restrictions, permitting chases unless deemed too dangerous or unnecessary. Supporters argue this will help law enforcement catch dangerous criminals who might otherwise escape, while opponents warn it could lead to more high-speed chases and greater risk to the public. As The Washington Post notes, this change could have significant ramifications for both police tactics and public safety in the city.
The judicial nomination bill is no less controversial. By eliminating the city’s judicial nomination commission, the legislation would give the president exclusive authority to select judges for D.C. courts, further reducing the city’s already limited influence over its own legal system. For many in the District, this feels like yet another example of Congress imposing its will on a city whose residents lack full voting representation in either chamber.
These moves come against the backdrop of President Trump’s recent declaration of a public safety emergency in D.C. and his decision to temporarily place the city’s police under federal control. Although that federal takeover expired last week, the message from the White House and House Republicans is clear: they intend to take a more hands-on approach to crime in the capital, even if it means rolling back local authority.
Supporters of the legislation say the measures are necessary to reverse what they see as a worrying trend of rising crime in D.C. and to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs. “We need to send a strong message that violent crime will not be tolerated in our nation’s capital,” Rep. Byron Donalds said, according to CNN. “These bills are about protecting families and restoring order.”
But for many city officials and residents, the bills represent a direct assault on D.C.’s hard-won—if still incomplete—right to self-governance. “This is not about public safety, it’s about control,” one D.C. council member argued in a statement reported by The Washington Post. “Congress should respect the will of D.C. residents and let us make decisions for our own community.”
The split in Congress reflects this broader national debate. While a handful of Democrats crossed party lines to support the crime bills, the votes were largely divided along partisan lines, with most Democrats opposing what they see as an attack on local democracy. Republicans, for their part, argue that the federal government has a special responsibility for the capital and must act when local officials, in their view, fall short.
As the bills now head to the Senate, the stakes are high for both the future of crime policy in Washington, D.C., and the ongoing struggle over the city’s right to govern itself. With more than a dozen related measures still under consideration, observers say this is likely just the beginning of a larger fight over the balance between federal oversight and local autonomy in the nation’s capital.
For residents of D.C., the outcome could have immediate, tangible effects—from how police pursue suspects on city streets to who gets to serve as a judge in their local courts. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the question of who controls Washington, D.C., is far from settled.