The bill adds a new part to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 creating a Department of Justice grant program aimed at strengthening traditional law-enforcement responses: hiring and retention, prosecuting vehicle theft and drug crimes, using bail and pretrial detention, prioritizing tougher sentences for repeat offenders (including juveniles), and supporting immigration-related detention and deportation. It also includes administrative audit authority for the Attorney General and an application regime for eligible state, local, and tribal law enforcement entities.
This measure matters because it ties a discrete pot of federal money to explicitly punitive strategies and to immigration enforcement, redirects existing unobligated federal balances into those priorities, and forbids—through redirection—certain current uses of DOJ funds (including diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives). That reallocation and the program’s enumerated priorities could alter local criminal-justice decision-making and federal–local coordination on policing and detention.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General will operate a competitive or formula grant program that funds eight specified uses, including hiring/bonuses for officers, targeting vehicle thefts and fentanyl-related crimes, eliminating forensic backlogs, combating child trafficking, and supporting detention/deportation of noncitizens who committed crimes. Applicants must be state, local, or tribal agencies authorized to handle criminal law enforcement.
Who It Affects
State and local police agencies, tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, forensic labs, immigration enforcement partners (e.g., ICE), and the Department of Justice (as grant administrator) are directly affected. Jurisdictions that prioritize community-based alternatives or have limits on local immigration enforcement face competing incentives.
Why It Matters
By specifying programmatic priorities and tying funding to them, the statute steers federal grant dollars toward incarceration-heavy responses and immigration enforcement rather than preventive or community-based approaches. The bill also repurposes existing unobligated federal balances and instructs the DOJ to displace certain DEI-focused funding streams.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute adds a new ‘‘Part PP’’ to Title I of the 1968 Act and defines ‘‘eligible entity’’ narrowly as a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe authorized to engage in or supervise criminal-law prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution. Eligible entities must apply to the Attorney General in a form and at times the DOJ prescribes.
The Administration’s implementation toolbox is broad: the Attorney General can issue regulations and procedural guidance for application review, and recipients must keep records the DOJ requires for audit. Critically, the DOJ’s audit authority extends not only to grantees and their host jurisdictions but also to third parties that received outsourced work funded by the grant when the records relate to grant receipt or use.Funding is handled through an immediate rescission and a partial re-appropriation.
The bill rescinds certain unobligated balances referenced in section 10301(1)(A)(ii) of a prior reconciliation act and then directs a one-time appropriation of half a billion dollars to DOJ for fiscal year 2026 to carry out this new part; those funds remain available through September 30, 2030. Any remaining rescinded funds are returned to the Treasury.
Separately, the statute instructs the Attorney General to redirect amounts previously appropriated for a federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative (Executive Order 14035) to implement this grant program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 3062 lists eight eligible grant purposes: hiring/retention/bonuses, targeting vehicle thefts (including carjackings), prioritizing stringent sentences for repeat offenders (including juveniles), using bail/pretrial detention, targeting drug and fentanyl crimes, detaining and deporting noncitizens who committed crimes, eliminating investigatory backlogs/processing evidence faster, and combating interstate child trafficking.
Section 3061 defines eligible entities as State agencies, units of local government, or Indian Tribes that are authorized to engage in or supervise criminal-law enforcement activities.
Section 3064 rescinds unspecified unobligated balances tied to section 10301(1)(A)(ii) of a prior reconciliation act and appropriates $500,000,000 to the Attorney General for FY2026 to carry out the new grant program, available until September 30, 2030.
The Attorney General may require grant recipients to maintain records and gives DOJ audit access to grantee books and records, to the state or local government where the grantee operates, and to any outsourced entities whose records relate to the grant.
The statute requires the Attorney General to redirect amounts originally appropriated for a federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative (per Executive Order 14035) toward carrying out this grant program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of eligible entities
This short section pins down who can receive grants: agencies of States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes that are authorized to engage in or supervise prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of criminal law violations. Practically, that means civilian social-service organizations, private nonprofits, and other non‑law‑enforcement entities are excluded unless the State or local law explicitly authorizes them to perform those law‑enforcement functions.
Make America Safe Again Grant Program — enumerated priorities
This is the operational heart of the bill. It enumerates eight permitted uses for grant funds—ranging from hiring and officer bonuses to prosecuting vehicle thefts, prioritizing strict sentences (including for juveniles), supporting pretrial detention and bail to keep ‘dangerous offenders’ off the streets, expanding drug and fentanyl enforcement, carrying out immigration-related detention and deportation, clearing forensic backlogs, and fighting interstate child trafficking. The specificity constrains discretionary uses: DOJ cannot award grants for purposes outside these categories without interpreting them expansively in guidance or regulations.
Administration, recordkeeping, and audit access
The Attorney General gets explicit rulemaking authority to manage application and review processes. Awardees must keep records the DOJ requires, and DOJ audit access extends to grantees, the state or local governments in which they operate, and outsourced contractors when relevant to grant receipt or use. That creates administrative burdens for recipients and third-party vendors and gives DOJ a broad footprint for post‑award compliance checks.
Funding mechanics: rescission, appropriation, and redirection
This section rescinds certain unobligated balances tied to a prior reconciliation act, re-appropriates $500 million to DOJ for FY2026 (available through 9/30/2030) to run the program, and directs any remaining rescinded funds back to the Treasury. It also instructs DOJ to reallocate amounts previously set aside for a federal DEI initiative (Executive Order 14035) toward carrying out this part. The combined rescission-plus-redirection approach both creates a new pot of funding and signals an administrative reprioritization within DOJ.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice 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 and local law-enforcement agencies that prioritize traditional policing: They gain a designated federal funding stream for hiring, retention, officer bonuses, and operational priorities explicitly aligned with the grant’s enumerated uses.
- Prosecutors and forensic units: Grants that fund backlog reduction and faster evidence processing will directly benefit prosecutors seeking to move cases and labs needing resources to eliminate evidentiary bottlenecks.
- Immigration enforcement partners (federal or local agencies that cooperate with ICE): The program funds detention and deportation activities and therefore strengthens capacity for immigration‑related enforcement tied to criminal conduct.
- Jurisdictions with high rates of vehicle theft or fentanyl activity: The statute’s targeted callouts create a competitive advantage for jurisdictions proposing programs addressing those specific crimes.
- Department of Justice leadership: The Attorney General obtains expanded discretionary authority to shape federal criminal-justice priorities through grantmaking and audit oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and police departments accepting grants: They take on new administrative duties (applications, recordkeeping, audits) and may face unfunded costs tied to implementing pretrial detention or sentencing changes the grant incentivizes.
- Communities favoring diversion and community-based programs: Because the statute prioritizes incarceration and stringent sentencing, community‑oriented alternatives may receive comparatively less federal support.
- Entities previously funded for DEI initiatives within DOJ: Those programs lose funding to this grant program by statute, shifting institutional priorities and potentially reducing workplace DEI activities.
- Third-party contractors and forensic vendors: Outsourced providers must retain and produce records for DOJ audits when their work is grant-funded, increasing compliance obligations and legal exposure.
- State and local budgets: If grant conditions push toward increased detention or incarceration, jurisdictions could face higher downstream costs (jail beds, juvenile placement, legal defense), some of which grants may not cover.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate goals—improving public safety through enhanced law-enforcement capacity and protecting due process, local autonomy, and rehabilitative approaches: the bill uses federal grant dollars to nudge jurisdictions toward incarceration‑focused tactics and immigration enforcement, solving certain short-term enforcement gaps while risking longer-term costs to civil liberties, juvenile rehabilitation, and community trust.
The bill constructs strong incentives rather than explicit mandates: federal dollars tied to narrow, punitive priorities will naturally influence local decision-making, but the statute leaves room for DOJ rulemaking to define eligibility and allowable activities. That creates implementation risk: administrative guidance could expand or constrain the program significantly, and grantees will need to track evolving DOJ interpretations.
The rescission of unobligated balances is a blunt funding move that depends on accurate accounting of prior appropriations; disputes over which funds were ‘‘unobligated’’ could prompt legal or administrative challenges.
Several operational tensions arise. First, the grant’s authorization to support detention and deportation of ‘‘illegal aliens who have committed criminal offenses’’ raises coordination questions with DHS and with localities that have limits on local immigration enforcement; accepting funds could pressure some jurisdictions to change long-standing policies.
Second, incentivizing ‘‘stringent sentences for repeat offenders, including juvenile offenders’’ conflicts with modern juvenile-justice trends that favor rehabilitation and with state constitutional or statutory protections; it also risks increasing detention of young people without accompanying investments in outcomes. Finally, redirecting funds away from DEI initiatives into punitive policing shifts DOJ institutional priorities and could create workforce and morale impacts within federal programs that are not accounted for in the statute.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.