House lawmakers on Wednesday advanced legislation that would expand police pursuit authority in the District of Columbia and eliminate the limited role the city’s elected officials now play in selecting local judges, a pair of measures D.C. leaders condemned as an unprecedented federal intrusion into municipal governance.

The first bill, which Republican and Democratic members supported, would roll back restrictions on when Metropolitan Police officers can engage in vehicle pursuits. Supporters argued the change would give officers needed flexibility to apprehend dangerous suspects. Opponents, including the District’s mayor and council members, say loosening chase policies risks civilian safety and undermines reforms adopted after high‑profile fatal pursuits nationwide.

The second measure would remove the last vestige of D.C. input into judicial appointments for its local courts. Currently, a Judicial Nomination Commission vets candidates and provides recommendations for presidential appointment; the new language strips the city’s elected officials of any formal say, critics said, allowing Congress to assert greater control over the composition of D.C.’s Superior Court and Court of Appeals.

“Today’s votes are a direct assault on the District’s home rule and the capacity of our city to govern itself,” the District’s mayor and council leadership said in a joint statement after the votes, calling the twin bills “political overreach” that ignores local expertise and priorities. Council members also warned the change would politicize a bench that has operated under an established nominating system for decades.

House Republicans framed the measures as public‑safety and oversight steps in a jurisdiction where Congress retains plenary authority. “Residents of the District deserve safe streets and a judicial system that is accountable,” a committee Republican said on the floor, arguing that federal oversight is appropriate given Washington’s unique status. Democrats largely defended local control, asserting that decisions about policing tactics and judicial selection should be made by the city’s voters and officials.

The police‑pursuit bill won support from members across the aisle — reflecting differences among Democrats over law enforcement authority — while the judicial selection proposal passed with narrower, largely partisan backing. Both now move to the Senate, where their prospects are uncertain; even if they clear the upper chamber, they would face a likely veto threat from the White House and further political scrutiny.

Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates warned that expanding pursuit authority could increase the number of high‑speed chases, which studies link to significant collateral harm — including injuries and deaths to bystanders — and disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. At the same time, stripping municipal influence from judicial appointments could weaken local accountability, they said, by making judges more answerable to national political dynamics than to the communities they serve.

The votes come amid a broader Republican effort to tighten federal control over the District, a jurisdiction that lacks full congressional representation. For D.C. officials and advocates for expanded self‑government, the measures underscore longstanding tensions over who gets to decide how the nation’s capital is run. The outcome will have practical implications for policing tactics, judicial independence and the voice District residents have in shaping policies that affect daily life in their city.