The Auto Theft Prevention Act would establish a new federal grant program to fund state and local law enforcement agencies in combating auto theft and stolen-vehicle trafficking. The Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services would administer the program, award grants to states, and oversee distribution to localities.
The bill also expands the use of COPs funds to support auto theft initiatives.
At a Glance
What It Does
Not later than 60 days after enactment, the Director must establish an auto theft prevention grant program. Grants will be awarded to recipient states and then distributed to local and state law enforcement agencies according to set percentages. Eligible activities include equipment, personnel, training, data collection, and administrative costs.
Who It Affects
Recipient states’ attorneys general and their law enforcement agencies, local law enforcement agencies receiving subgrants, and state law enforcement agencies coordinating statewide efforts; communities in high-theft areas.
Why It Matters
Creates a dedicated, federally funded stream to support targeted auto theft enforcement and trafficking reduction, with a structured distribution and accountability framework that prioritizes high-theft jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new Auto Theft Prevention Grant Program administered by the DOJ’s COPS office. States apply with evidence of need and a plan for using funds to reduce auto theft and trafficking.
The Director awards grants to states and then makes subgrants to local agencies and state agencies, prioritizing areas with higher theft rates. At least half of a grant must go to local agencies, and at least a quarter to state agencies, with the remainder available as subgrants to localities or state agencies.
Eligible uses include equipment purchases (e.g., law enforcement vehicles, license plate readers), data storage and analysis, hiring and overtime for officers, training, joint task forces, and administrative costs (up to 5%). The bill authorizes $30 million per year from 2026 through 2030.
It also expands the COPs program to support auto theft activities. The focus is on practical, on-the-ground capacity to deter theft and disrupt stolen-vehicle networks, rather than broad, unfocused funding.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grant program established and funded at $30 million per year (2026–2030).
Not less than 50% of each grant goes to local subgrants; at least 25% goes to state law enforcement; remaining funds may be awarded via competitive subgrants.
Eligible uses include vehicles and license plate readers, data storage, staff hiring, overtime, training, joint task forces, and admin costs up to 5%.
States must submit applications with evidence of need and a plan to implement and evaluate activities.
Section 4 expands Authorized COPs uses to cover auto theft prevention activities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions for program scope
Definitions establish the key players and terms that govern the grant program, including the Director of the COPS Office, grant year, local and state law enforcement agencies, and the recipient states. These definitions set the boundary for who can receive funds and how the program will be administered.
Grant program establishment
This section requires the Director to establish the auto theft prevention grant program not more than 60 days after enactment. It creates the core mechanism for federal funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to combat auto theft and stolen-vehicle trafficking.
State application requirements
States seeking a grant must submit an application with evidentiary materials, prior-year actions to reduce auto theft, and a plan showing how they will implement and evaluate auto theft prevention activities using the funds.
Awards framework
The Director awards grants to states that submit compliant applications, prioritizing states with higher levels of auto theft in the year before the grant year. The decision to fund and the grant amount depend on the application’s content and demonstrated need.
Distribution of funds
Unlike a simple lump sum, the program specifies allocation: not less than 50% to local subgrants within the recipient state, not less than 25% to state law enforcement agencies, and the remainder to competitive subgrants for localities or states. Subgrants are prioritized for jurisdictions with higher theft rates.
Eligible activities
Funds may be used for equipment (including police vehicles and license plate readers), data storage and analysis, hiring and overtime for personnel, training, joint task forces, and administration (up to 5% of the grant). These activities must directly combat auto theft and stolen-vehicle trafficking.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $30 million per fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out the Program, establishing a predictable federal funding stream for auto theft prevention efforts.
Expanded COPs uses for auto theft
Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to insert auto theft prevention as an eligible COPs activity, allowing the use of these funds for equipment, personnel, overtime, training, joint task forces, and data collection related to auto theft.
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
- Local law enforcement agencies in recipient states gain access to competitive subgrants and resources to deter theft and pursue criminals.
- State law enforcement agencies (including state patrols and AG offices) receive funding to coordinate statewide anti-theft efforts and support enforcement initiatives.
- Joint task forces and regional collaborations become more feasible with dedicated funding for coordination and data sharing.
- DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services oversees program administration and grants management, improving enforcement resources.
- Residents in high-theft communities benefit indirectly through reduced theft risk and faster recovery of stolen vehicles.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Attorneys General offices bear administrative duties, grant oversight, and reporting requirements to administer the program.
- Local and state law enforcement agencies must absorb or reallocate resources for overtime, hiring, training, equipment purchases, and data infrastructure within grant limits.
- Localities that receive subgrants bear ongoing obligations to manage grant-funded activities and demonstrate results.
- Federal program oversight and compliance costs are borne by the DOJ through the COPS Office.
- Some ongoing costs of data storage and equipment maintenance may extend beyond initial grant coverage, depending on local pricing and renewal cycles.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing rapid, localized enforcement with rigorous accountability and data-sharing across jurisdictions is the central dilemma. The bill must ensure that funds reach the areas most in need without creating administrative bottlenecks or privacy concerns, while also guaranteeing that grant money translates into measurable reductions in auto theft and trafficking.
The bill creates a targeted funding mechanism to strengthen local and state enforcement against auto theft and trafficking, with explicit prioritization toward jurisdictions with higher theft rates. While the funding structure emphasizes local subgrants, it also imposes administrative and reporting obligations on state agencies and the Attorney General’s offices, which could redirect state resources toward grant administration rather than other priorities.
The reliance on equipment and data infrastructure—like license plate readers and storage—raises questions about ongoing maintenance costs, data privacy concerns, and interoperability across jurisdictions. The 5% cap on administrative costs helps, but the overall effectiveness will depend on state-level implementation, partner agency capacity, and the accuracy of theft-rate data used for prioritization.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.