The HIRRE Prosecutors Act of 2025 directs the Attorney General to create a single, competitive grant program to help prosecutor offices hire, rehire, retain, and train prosecutors and support staff. Eligible applicants include State, territorial, local, and tribal prosecutor’s offices; the Attorney General may give preference to applications that serve tribal, remote, or rural areas, rehire staff laid off due to budget cuts, or add new prosecutors and support personnel.
The bill caps the federal share at 75 percent (with a discretionary waiver), forbids supplanting of existing State or local funds, allows certain nonfederal matches (including asset forfeiture proceeds and Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations for tribes), authorizes $10 million per year for FY2026–2030, and requires monitoring, evaluation, and potential suspension or revocation of grants for noncompliance. For compliance officers and budget officers, the measure creates a modest dedicated funding stream but also adds matching, reporting, and evaluation obligations that jurisdictions must plan for before applying.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General must establish, within one year of enactment, a competitive grant program to fund hiring, rehiring, retention, and training of prosecutors and their support staff; the DOJ may use any component to run the program and issue implementing regulations. Grants are limited to staffing-related uses and include requirements for monitoring, evaluation, and potential revocation for noncompliance.
Who It Affects
Directly affects prosecutor’s offices at the State, territorial, local, and tribal levels that choose to apply; also implicates finance offices that must supply a 25% nonfederal match (subject to waiver), asset forfeiture coordinators, and Bureau of Indian Affairs budget managers when tribes use BIA funds for matching. The Department of Justice will carry administrative and evaluation responsibilities.
Why It Matters
It targets workforce gaps that many jurisdictions cite as barriers to charging and case processing, but the program’s small annual authorization and matching rules mean competition will be intense and some jurisdictions will face trade-offs when meeting match, reporting, and performance-evaluation requirements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill requires the Attorney General to set up a single DOJ grant program to help prosecutor offices hire, retain, and train prosecutors and support staff. The AG has one year after enactment to establish the program and may award grants on a competitive basis to prosecutor offices at the State, territory, local, or tribal level that submit applications in the form and timeframe the AG prescribes.
The statute limits use of grant funds strictly to staffing and training-related activities for prosecutor offices.
Applicants can seek funds to hire new prosecutors or support staff, to rehire prosecutors laid off because of budget cuts, or to train and retain existing staff. The statute authorizes the Attorney General to give preferential consideration to applications that address staffing in tribal, rural, or remote jurisdictions (using the Violence Against Women Act’s definition for those areas), to rehiring laid-off prosecutors, or to hiring and training new prosecutors and support personnel.
The DOJ may use any of its components to administer the program and to support applicants and grantees.Financially, the federal government can pay up to 75 percent of a grant-funded project’s cost; grantees must provide the remaining 25 percent except where the Attorney General grants a waiver based on the recipient’s financial circumstances. The law bars using program funds to supplant existing State, local, or BIA-provided funds; it explicitly permits nonfederal matching from equitable-sharing proceeds of asset forfeiture programs and allows tribes to use Congressional appropriations for BIA prosecutorial activities as their nonfederal share.
The AG can require systematic monitoring and evaluation, collect reports, and suspend or revoke grant funding if a grantee fails to comply.Finally, the statute authorizes $10 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the program and gives the Attorney General general regulatory authority to issue regulations and guidelines. The appropriation level implies the program will fund a limited number of projects each year, increasing the importance of the competitive criteria and the matching/waiver decisions in determining which jurisdictions benefit.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must establish the program within one year and may award grants on a competitive basis to prosecutor’s offices of States, territories, units of local government, or tribal governments.
Grant funds may be used only to hire, retain, and train prosecutors or support staff for prosecutor’s offices; non-staffing uses are not authorized.
The federal share of grant-funded projects is capped at 75 percent; the Attorney General may waive the 25 percent match requirement when equitable based on a recipient’s financial circumstances.
The statute prohibits supplanting State, local, or (for tribes) BIA funds, but it permits use of equitable-sharing (asset forfeiture) proceeds and BIA appropriations to satisfy nonfederal matching requirements.
The bill authorizes $10 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 and requires monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and empowers the Attorney General to suspend or revoke funding for noncompliance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 names the statute the Helping Improve Recruitment and Retention Efforts for Prosecutors Act of 2025 (HIRRE Prosecutors Act of 2025). This is purely formal but makes it straightforward to reference the program in appropriation and DOJ rulemaking documents.
Program establishment, grant authority, and eligibility
Subsections (a)–(d) require the Attorney General to establish a single Program to assist prosecutor offices in hiring prosecutors and authorize the AG to make competitive grants. Eligible recipients are prosecutor’s offices of States, territories, units of local government, or tribal governments that submit applications in the form and with the information the AG requires. Practically, the DOJ will need to design an application, set selection criteria, timelines, and compliance clauses; applicants should expect an explicit application package and scoring rubric from DOJ rulemaking or guidelines.
Permitted uses and DOJ implementation
Subsection (e) restricts grant expenditures to hiring, retaining, and training prosecutors or support staff, which narrows program impact to personnel-related investments rather than capital or systems upgrades. Subsection (f) lets the Attorney General use any Department of Justice component to operate the Program, meaning components such as OJP (Office of Justice Programs) or OVW could be tasked with administration, technical assistance, or evaluation resources—organizational choices that will shape outreach and the nature of support provided to grantees.
Preferential consideration criteria
Subsection (g) authorizes—but does not require—the AG to give preference to applications that hire new staff, rehire laid-off prosecutors, or come from jurisdictions identified as tribal, remote, or rural under the Violence Against Women Act definition. This creates a statutory signal toward prioritizing underserved areas and rehiring lost capacity, but leaves the weight of these factors to DOJ implementation choices, affecting which applicants succeed in a competitive process.
Federal share, waiver, and non-supplanting; permitted nonfederal matches
Subsection (h) sets the federal contribution at up to 75 percent and authorizes the AG to waive the 25 percent match where equitable. It contains a non-supplanting rule that prevents using Program funds to replace existing State/local or BIA-provided funds; the text clarifies that Program grants must increase, not replace, existing funding levels. The statute also expressly allows the use of equitable-sharing (asset forfeiture) proceeds as nonfederal match and permits tribes to use Congressional appropriations for BIA prosecutorial activities as their nonfederal share—specific match flexibilities that jurisdictions should factor into budget planning but that raise coordination questions with existing asset-sharing programs and BIA budgets.
Monitoring, evaluation, enforcement, and rulemaking
Subsection (i) requires projects to include monitoring components, mandates DOJ evaluations (project-level or national), allows the AG to collect results and other information, and authorizes suspension or revocation of funding for noncompliance. Subsection (j) gives the AG general regulatory authority to issue whatever regulations and guidance are necessary to administer the program. Together these provisions create enforceable reporting obligations and preserve DOJ discretion to set performance metrics and take remedial action against grantees that fail to meet program terms.
Authorization of appropriations
Subsection (k) authorizes $10,000,000 per fiscal year for 2026 through 2030 to carry out the Program. That authorization level sets an upper bound on the program’s annual scale and signals that Congress envisions a modest, targeted program rather than a large-scale federal infusion—an important consideration for jurisdictions deciding whether to prepare detailed applications and commit matching funds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore 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
- Prosecutor’s offices in tribal, remote, and rural jurisdictions — the bill specifically permits preferential consideration for these areas, and the statute allows tribes to use BIA appropriations as matching funds, increasing the chance of awards for under-resourced offices.
- Localities seeking to rehire staff laid off for budget reasons — preferential consideration for rehiring and the 75% federal share lower the financial barrier to restore lost prosecutorial capacity.
- Smaller prosecutor offices lacking training budgets — explicit authorization to use grant funds for training creates an avenue to professional development that many small offices cannot otherwise afford.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments that apply — they must provide a nonfederal match of 25 percent unless the Attorney General waives it, which can force reallocation of local budgets or use of restricted funding sources to meet the match.
- Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal budget allocations — tribes that choose to use BIA appropriations as match may reduce funds available for other tribal services unless Congress increases BIA funding.
- Department of Justice — DOJ will absorb administrative and evaluation responsibilities (or reassign components), requiring staffing, systems for monitoring and reporting, and rulemaking resources not funded separately by the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between providing federal help to address acute local prosecutorial workforce shortages and preserving local fiscal autonomy and priorities: the program seeks to expand staffing capacity through federal grants while insisting funds not supplant local or BIA resources, and delegates significant discretion to DOJ over preferences, waivers, and evaluations—forcing a trade-off between flexible, targeted federal support and locally driven budgetary control.
The statute leaves several implementation-critical details to Attorney General rulemaking: the application form and required information, the weight of preferential criteria, the definition of allowable staffing and support positions, precise monitoring metrics, and the standard for granting waivers. That delegation gives DOJ flexibility to tailor the program but creates uncertainty for applicants who must plan budgets and staffing before seeing scoring rubrics and reporting requirements.
The authorized funding—$10 million annually—is modest relative to nationwide prosecutorial staffing shortfalls. That limited pot will magnify the importance of competitive criteria and the AG’s discretionary waiver authority, potentially concentrating funds in a small number of sizable awards rather than broadly distributing modest grants.
The explicit permission to use equitable-sharing asset forfeiture proceeds as nonfederal match and to use BIA appropriations for tribal matching reduces one practical barrier to meeting match requirements, but links grant uptake to funding sources that carry their own policy and political controversies. Finally, the statutory non-supplanting requirement will require careful baseline accounting: grantees must show that federal dollars increase local spending on prosecution rather than replace it, a compliance question that often requires detailed historical budget analysis and could trigger disputes between grantees and DOJ evaluators.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.