This bill creates the Extraordinary Protection Reimbursement Program inside the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies for costs that exceed normal operations when they provide protection to non‑governmental properties designated for Secret Service‑protected persons (as tied to specific paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. §3056).
The statute sets eligibility and narrow allowable uses (direct man‑hours, property‑specific equipment certified by the Secret Service Director, and protection only while the protected person is present or traveling), requires Inspector General audits and annual, grantee‑level reporting, and authorizes $61 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2028, administered by DHS’s Management Directorate or FEMA in coordination with the Secret Service.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DHS to run a reimbursable grant program that pays state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement for extraordinary protection activities tied to non‑governmental properties designated under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976 for certain categories of Secret Service‑protected persons. Grants are reimbursable and limited to costs demonstrably in excess of routine patrol or response duties.
Who It Affects
Directly affects state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies that provide protection to residences, offices, or other non‑governmental properties of people protected under specific paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. §3056. It also implicates the Secret Service (for certification), DHS program offices (for administration), and congressional appropriations and oversight committees.
Why It Matters
This creates a dedicated federal funding stream for localities bearing fiscal burdens when protecting Secret Service‑covered individuals at private properties, formalizes Secret Service certification of equipment needs, and builds in oversight (IG audits and annual, grantee‑level disclosures) that will shape how agencies document and claim extraordinary protection costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish the Extraordinary Protection Reimbursement Program and to make grants on a reimbursable basis to state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies. To qualify the applicant must certify that claimed reimbursement covers costs ‘‘in excess of’’ normal law enforcement operations and that expenditures are directly attributable to protecting a non‑governmental property designated for Secret Service protection under specified paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. §3056.
Permitted expenses are tightly defined. Personnel costs are limited to man‑hours directly spent protecting the property (for example, dedicated patrols or officers posted specifically at the residence or office).
Equipment purchases must be for the explicit purpose of protecting the property and require the Director of the Secret Service to verify the grantee’s need, including travel to and from the property. Reimbursement covers protection only while the protected individual is physically at or traveling to or from the property.The bill layers accountability on top: the DHS Inspector General must audit the program annually and DHS must produce yearly reports to congressional homeland security committees that disclose total grants and, for each grantee, the identity, amount received, total man‑hours devoted to protection, and an itemized list of equipment bought with the grant plus the Secret Service certification.
Within 180 days of enactment the Secretary must report to Appropriations and Homeland Security committees on implementing recommendations from the DHS OIG’s July 28, 2023 report and then ensure those recommendations are implemented.Funding is explicit but time‑limited: $61 million is authorized for each of fiscal years 2026, 2027, and 2028. Administration of the program is assigned to the Department’s Management Directorate or FEMA, as directed by the Secretary, to be run in coordination with the Secret Service.
The bill also defines “non‑governmental property” and excludes short‑term lodgings under 30 days from the definition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Authorizes $61,000,000 per fiscal year for FY2026, FY2027, and FY2028 to implement the reimbursement program.
Grants reimburse only costs ‘‘in excess’’ of typical law enforcement operations and must be paid on a reimbursable basis after documentation of extraordinary costs.
Equipment bought with grant funds must be explicitly for protecting a designated property and require a verification of need from the Director of the U.S. Secret Service.
Reimbursement applies only while the protected person is physically present at, or traveling to or from, the non‑governmental property; short‑term lodgings under 30 days are excluded.
The DHS Inspector General must audit the program annually and DHS must submit a fiscal‑year report that lists every grantee, grant amount, total man‑hours devoted to protection, and an itemized equipment list with the required Secret Service certification.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the act as the ‘‘Secret Service‑Local Law Enforcement Partnership Act of 2026.’
Establishes the Extraordinary Protection Reimbursement Program
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to set up a reimbursable grants program to compensate state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement for protection activities linked to non‑governmental properties designated under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act for certain classes of individuals under 18 U.S.C. §3056. This provision creates the statutory authorization for the program and ties eligibility to Secret Service designations.
Eligibility and certification requirement
Limits applicants to State, local, Tribal, or territorial law enforcement agencies and requires a certification that claimed funds will cover only costs incurred in excess of typical operations and directly attributable to the specified protection. Practically, grantees must be able to separate ordinary patrol or investigative duties from extraordinary protection activities in their accounting and claims.
Permitted uses and Secret Service certification for equipment
Specifies allowable expenditures: personnel (man‑hours spent on property protection) and equipment (only for explicit protection purposes), and requires the Secret Service Director to ensure a demonstrated need for equipment purchases and associated travel. It also restricts reimbursements to time periods when the protected person is present or en route to/from the property, narrowing allowable claims and creating a strict causal hook for reimbursement.
Implementation of prior OIG recommendations and reporting to appropriations
Requires the Secretary to report to relevant House and Senate committees within 180 days on implementation of recommendations from the DHS Inspector General’s July 28, 2023 report and to ensure those recommendations are adopted going forward. This ties program rollout to past OIG findings and aims to incorporate prior oversight lessons into program design.
Accountability: annual IG audits and DHS reporting
Mandates annual DHS Office of Inspector General audits and allows further inspections as needed, with IG audit reports due within 90 days after the fiscal year’s first date. Also requires an annual DHS report to congressional homeland security committees with grantee‑level detail: identity, grant amount, total man‑hours on protection, and itemized equipment lists including the Secret Service certification for each item.
Definitions — what counts as a non‑governmental property
Defines ‘‘non‑governmental property’’ as private property owned or leased and designated for protection by the Secret Service and explicitly excludes hotels or temporary accommodations of less than 30 days. This definition narrows the program’s reach and preempts claims tied to short‑term stays.
Authorization and administration
Authorizes appropriations ($61M per year for three years) and directs the Department’s Management Directorate or FEMA to administer the funds, in coordination with the Secret Service. Allocates clear administrative responsibility within DHS rather than leaving it solely to the Secret Service, which affects which office manages grants, compliance, and disbursements.
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
- State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies — They gain a federal funding source to offset personnel and equipment expenses that exceed routine operations when protecting Secret Service‑designated non‑governmental properties, reducing strain on local budgets.
- Municipal and county budgets — Local governments facing politically sensitive protection obligations (residences or offices of protected individuals) receive direct reimbursement, easing fiscal pressure on general funds and potentially freeing money for other services.
- Protected individuals and private property owners — Owners of residences or offices designated for Secret Service protection benefit from continued or enhanced local protective presence because local agencies are less likely to curtail extraordinary protection for lack of funds.
- U.S. Secret Service — Gains a formal mechanism to certify equipment needs and coordinate with DHS grant administrators, potentially improving harmonization between federal protection responsibilities and local execution.
- DHS grant and emergency management offices — Management Directorate or FEMA acquires a clear administrative role and funding to run a focused grants program, expanding their portfolio and control over program design and compliance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal appropriations (Congress and taxpayers) — The program commits $61M annually for three fiscal years, a direct budgetary cost that Congress must appropriate.
- DHS program offices and FEMA/Management Directorate — Will bear administrative and compliance burdens to stand up the program, process reimbursements, and coordinate with the Secret Service and grantees; some costs may require internal reallocation if not separately funded.
- Local law enforcement agencies — Although reimbursed for extraordinary costs, agencies must track, document, and certify man‑hours and equipment needs, incurring administrative costs and compliance duties; smaller agencies may face disproportionate burden.
- Secret Service — Must review and certify equipment needs and may take on additional oversight responsibilities, diverting time from core protective operations.
- Potential unequal distribution across jurisdictions — Areas with greater demand for protection could absorb the bulk of funds, while smaller or rural jurisdictions may receive less even though per‑capita burdens could be high.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: compensate local agencies for the real, often unbudgeted costs of protecting Secret Service‑designated private properties to preserve security and local‑federal partnership, versus avoiding a program that is administratively complex, susceptible to gaming, and costly to taxpayers; the statute tightens eligibility and reporting to control costs, but those same controls create implementation burdens and friction between local agencies, DHS, and the Secret Service.
The bill draws a tight causal line between extraordinary protection and reimbursement, but translating ‘‘costs in excess of typical law enforcement operation costs’’ into consistent, auditable claims will be operationally difficult. Agencies must distinguish ordinary patrol and investigative duties from protection‑specific time, and DHS will need clear guidance and allowable cost categories to avoid ad hoc decisions or litigation.
The requirement for Secret Service certification on equipment purchases improves control, but it also centralizes judgment about operational need in an agency that is itself a program stakeholder.
The funding is explicit but time‑limited (three years), which means localities that come to rely on reimbursements face uncertainty once authorizations expire. The program’s structure also creates a potential moral hazard: jurisdictions might alter deployment patterns to increase reimbursable hours or classify routine activity as ‘‘directly attributable’’ protection.
Finally, the bill mandates granular, grantee‑level public reporting (including identities, hours, and equipment lists), which supports oversight but raises privacy and operational security questions that DHS and grantees will need to reconcile in redaction and disclosure policies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.