The SAFE Cities Act requires the Attorney General, working with DHS and OMB, to publish on the Department of Justice website a list of States or local governments identified as "anarchist jurisdictions." The list must be published within 14 days of enactment and updated at least every 180 days. The bill sets four broad considerations for designation—policies limiting law enforcement intervention, preventing policing of areas, disempowerment or defunding of police, and unreasonable refusal of federal assistance—and defines an "anarchist jurisdiction" as one that "has refused to take reasonable steps to stop acts of violence and destruction of property."
Beyond naming jurisdictions, the bill directs OMB to issue guidance within 30 days requiring federal agencies to, to the maximum extent allowed by law, restrict or otherwise disfavor anarchist jurisdictions in receipt of federal grants where agencies have discretion. The statutory text delegates substantial judgment to Executive Branch officials but provides no administrative appeal or statutory standard for how a jurisdiction can cure or contest a designation.
That combination creates both a lever for federal influence over local policing policy and a set of legal and implementation questions for grantmakers, state and local governments, and courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill compels the Attorney General to create a publicly posted list of "anarchist jurisdictions," updates it at least every 180 days, and requires OMB to issue guidance pressuring federal agencies to limit discretionary grants to listed jurisdictions. It provides four non-exhaustive criteria that the Executive should consider when identifying jurisdictions.
Who It Affects
State and local governments that alter policing policy, governors and mayors negotiating federal assistance, federal grantmaking agencies and program officers with discretionary award authority, and the Department of Justice and OMB as implementers.
Why It Matters
The measure weaponizes federal naming and grant leverage to influence local policing decisions, raises federalism and due-process concerns, and creates immediate compliance questions for agencies that administer discretionary formula and competitive grants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill’s operative mechanism is simple on its face: the Attorney General, after consulting DHS and OMB, must publish a list of jurisdictions that meet the bill’s standard for being "anarchist." The statutory deadline to post the initial list is 14 days after enactment, and the list must be refreshed no less often than every 180 days. The text gives the Executive Branch four concrete but broad points to consider when deciding whether to place a jurisdiction on the list.
Those four considerations cover a range of local actions: formal policies or practices that restrain police from restoring order during large-scale violence; actions that prevent policing of particular geographic areas or structures (with an explicit carve-out for narrowly tactical, temporary withdrawals); steps to defund or disempower law enforcement; and an "unreasonable" refusal to accept federal law enforcement assistance. The definition that governs the statute—an "anarchist jurisdiction" is one that "has refused to take reasonable steps to stop acts of violence and destruction of property"—is deliberately capacious and leaves the operational meaning of "reasonable" to Executive interpretation.In parallel, OMB must issue guidance within 30 days of enactment telling federal agencies to use their lawful discretion to restrict or otherwise disfavour listed jurisdictions for federal grants.
The statute does not create new statutory ineligibilities; instead it asks agencies to apply existing legal discretion to limit funding where permitted. That creates a patchwork effect—some programs with strict statutory formulas or mandatory eligibility will be unaffected, while discretionary programs and competitive grants could be redirected away from designated jurisdictions.The bill does not create a statutory appeal procedure for jurisdictions placed on the list, nor does it prescribe evidentiary standards, notification requirements, or timelines for delisting.
It also explicitly builds interagency consultation into the designation process (AG consulting DHS and OMB), but leaves final judgment with the Attorney General. Practically, implementation will require agencies to map which grants they can lawfully restrict, create internal processes to follow OMB guidance, and prepare for likely legal challenges from states, localities, and grant recipients.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must publish an initial list of "anarchist jurisdictions" within 14 days of enactment and update it at least every 180 days.
Designation considerations are fourfold: policies restricting law enforcement intervention during widespread violence; preventing policing of geographic areas (excluding tactical withdrawals); disempowerment/defunding of law enforcement; and unreasonable refusal of federal assistance.
OMB must issue guidance within 30 days directing agencies to, "to the maximum extent permitted by law," restrict or disfavor designated jurisdictions in awarding federal grants where agencies have lawful discretion.
The statute defines an "anarchist jurisdiction" as any State or local government that "has refused to take reasonable steps to stop acts of violence and destruction of property," but it does not define "reasonable steps" or create a formal appeal or delisting procedure.
The bill targets discretionary funding leverage rather than creating categorical statutory ineligibilities, meaning programs governed by mandatory formula or statutory eligibility criteria may be unaffected while competitive and discretionary awards could be curtailed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: SAFE Cities Act
This is the short-title provision naming the bill the "Stop Anarchists From Endangering Cities Act" or the "SAFE Cities Act." It has no operative effect beyond labeling the statute, but the title signals congressional intent and will shape public messaging about the law's purpose.
Publication and update schedule for the list
Subsection (a) requires the Attorney General, in consultation with DHS and OMB, to publish the list on the DOJ website within 14 days of enactment and to refresh it at least every 180 days. The tight initial deadline and the semiannual update requirement force the Department to build a recurring administrative process—evidence collection, interagency review, public posting—and to keep the designation list current, which increases both operational burden and the likelihood of political contestation.
Designations: four considerations for identifying jurisdictions
Subsection (b) supplies four non-exclusive factors the AG should consider when deciding whether a State or local government is an "anarchist jurisdiction." Those factors address (1) policies or practices that impede law enforcement intervention during sustained violence; (2) prevention of policing in specific areas (with a limited tactical exception); (3) disempowerment or defunding of law enforcement; and (4) unreasonable refusal of federal assistance. Each factor blends policy and fact—e.g., a municipal budget vote to cut police funding versus a temporary tactical redeployment—leaving substantial interpretive room for Executive determination.
OMB guidance on restricting grant eligibility
Subsection (c) directs the Director of OMB to issue guidance within 30 days instructing federal agencies to, to the maximum extent permitted by law, restrict or otherwise disfavor anarchist jurisdictions when awarding grants that agencies can lawfully condition. The language instructs agencies to use discretionary authority rather than create new statutory ineligibility; that requires program-by-program legal assessments to determine where OMB's direction can be followed without violating statutes, appropriations law, or established program rules.
Statutory definition of 'anarchist jurisdiction'
Subsection (d) defines an "anarchist jurisdiction" as a State or unit of local government that "has refused to take reasonable steps to stop acts of violence and destruction of property." The definition anchors designations to a conduct-based standard but leaves core terms—"refused" and "reasonable steps"—undetermined. That absence of definitional detail concentrates discretion in the Executive and sets up potential legal challenges around vagueness, equal protection, and preemption/federalism.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal law enforcement and homeland security agencies — the list and accompanying OMB guidance strengthen the Executive’s leverage to encourage local cooperation with federal policing and may increase resources or political support for federal intervention in places deemed non-cooperative.
- Municipalities and states that prioritize traditional policing and accept federal assistance — they may gain relative advantage in discretionary grant competitions when jurisdictions placed on the list are deprioritized.
- Businesses and property owners in jurisdictions credited as taking "reasonable steps" — they could see increased federal support and a signaling effect that may reduce insurance or security costs tied to civil unrest risk.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and local governments designated as "anarchist jurisdictions" — they face reputational damage, reduced access to discretionary federal grants (affecting policing, public safety, community development, and other locally administered programs), and increased litigation risk.
- Nonprofit service providers and local entities in designated areas — organizations that rely on federal grant funding to deliver social services or public-safety programming may lose awards, even if their missions are unrelated to policing policy.
- Federal grantmaking agencies and program offices — they must perform legal analyses to identify which programs can lawfully disfavor a jurisdiction, modify award processes, and document compliance with OMB guidance, increasing administrative costs.
- Courts and the Justice Department — the statute’s vagueness and discretionary designations will likely produce litigation challenging designation standards, procedural fairness, and the constitutionality of funding restrictions, imposing judicial and DOJ resource burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the federal government should be permitted to use naming and discretionary funding pressure to enforce local policing norms: the bill gives the Executive a flexible tool to promote public safety and federal cooperation, but that same flexibility risks politicized designations, legal challenges over vagueness and federal overreach, and collateral harm to residents and service providers in labeled jurisdictions.
The bill centralizes discretion in executive agencies without prescribing procedural safeguards. It asks the Attorney General to make potentially consequential public designations on a fast timeline while providing no notice, evidentiary standard, or appeal path for targeted jurisdictions.
That raises classic administrative-law concerns—what process must the AG follow, and what records must the government produce to support a designation? Those questions matter because the main practical effect flows through OMB-directed grant restrictions rather than direct statutory penalties.
Legally, the statute creates tension across multiple axes. OMB guidance can only push agencies to the "maximum extent permitted by law," which means agencies must reconcile the guidance with program statutes, appropriations riders, nondiscrimination obligations, and contractual commitments.
The bill’s vague definition—"refused to take reasonable steps"—invites challenges on vagueness and potentially on the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment grounds where federal leverage changes the relationship between federal funding and local policy. Finally, the political risk of a designation being used as a tool to punish jurisdictions for policy disagreements (rather than clear dereliction) is real; that risk could provoke defensive policy changes, aggressive litigation, or strained federal-local cooperation during high-stakes incidents.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.