Sponsors (2)
I'll give you the short version of this bill.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Blocks specified federal public works and Community Development Block Grant money from going to States or urban localities that abolish or sharply cut their police or state law enforcement agencies without a major revenue shortfall the prior year. It defines what counts as a “defunding State” or “defunding locality,” requires grant recipients to return funds if they become defunding during a grant period, and directs how returned funds must be reallocated. The bill changes eligibility rules for certain federal grants so that communities that eliminate or make large unexplained cuts to police/law-enforcement budgets are ineligible for or must repay covered federal development grants, with those funds redirected to eligible areas.
Adds an additional eligibility criterion to the grant-criteria subsection to exclude projects carried out in areas that are defunding States or defunding localities.
Modifies the requirements for supplementary grants to add an eligibility condition excluding projects carried out in areas that contain defunding States or defunding localities.
Adds a new subsection making States or localities that are 'defunding' ineligible for grants for training, research, and technical assistance and requires immediate return and reallocation of amounts received while defunding.
Adds a definition entry to the general definitions for Title I defining the term 'defunding State or locality' by reference to section 2 of the Act.
Alters grantee certification requirements to prohibit grantees that are defunding States or localities and adds a new subsection prohibiting obligation or expenditure of Title I funds for defunding States/localities, with rules for immediate return and reallocation of returned amounts.
Defines the term "defunding State" as a State that meets one of the listed conditions (A or B).
A State is a "defunding State" if it abolishes or disbands a State law enforcement agency with no intention of reconstituting that agency.
A State is a "defunding State" if it significantly reduces a State law enforcement agency’s budget, provided the State did not face a significant decrease in revenues in the previous fiscal year.
Defines the term "defunding locality" as a political subdivision of a State (other than a rural police department) that is in an urbanized area and meets one of the listed conditions (i or ii).
A political subdivision in an urbanized area is a "defunding locality" if it abolishes or disbands the police department with no intention of reconstituting the jurisdiction’s police department.
Who is affected and how:
State governments: States that abolish a State law enforcement agency or make large unexplained cuts risk losing eligibility for covered federal public works and CDBG funds and must return funds if they become defunding during a grant period. This can disrupt planned infrastructure and economic development projects.
Urban local governments and police departments: Cities and other urbanized localities that abolish or sharply cut police departments (without qualifying revenue declines) could lose grant access and face clawbacks on active grants, affecting community development, housing, and public works projects.
Grant recipients and project partners: Non‑defunding jurisdictions and non‑profit or private partners in those jurisdictions may see changes in available funding streams; returned funds would be reallocated to other eligible recipients, which could shift project priorities regionally.
Federal grant-making agencies (e.g., HUD, Economic Development Administration): Agencies will need to add eligibility screening, monitoring, and enforcement processes to detect status changes and manage returns and reallocations. Administrative workload and compliance costs would likely increase.
Communities and beneficiaries: Residents in jurisdictions labeled defunding may face halted or delayed projects (infrastructure, housing, economic development). Conversely, communities in eligible jurisdictions could receive additional funds reallocated from returned amounts.
Legal and political effects: Conditioning federal development funding on local policing decisions may prompt litigation or political disputes over federal power, state and local budget autonomy, and the definitions/thresholds used to determine "defunding."
Overall, the bill ties federal community-development dollars to local and state law-enforcement budgeting choices, creating financial incentives and penalties that could materially affect planning and delivery of local projects and increase federal administrative burdens.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced May 15, 2025 by Brian K. Fitzpatrick · Last progress May 15, 2025
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House