List and grant guidance for jurisdictions

Summary#

This bill directs the Attorney General to create and publish a list of “anarchist jurisdictions” and tells the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to tell federal agencies to limit or otherwise disfavour those jurisdictions for grants when the agency has legal discretion. The bill defines an “anarchist jurisdiction” as a state or local government that has refused to take reasonable steps to stop violence and property destruction. Its stated goal is to identify jurisdictions that do not restore order and to use federal grant rules to pressure them.

Key changes:

• Who lists: The Attorney General, after consulting Homeland Security and OMB, must publish a list of anarchist jurisdictions.
• Timing: The list must be first posted within 14 days after the bill becomes law and updated at least every 180 days.
• Criteria: Officials should consider whether a jurisdiction limits policing, prevents policing of areas they could lawfully police, disempowers or defunds police, or refuses federal law enforcement help.
• Grant guidance: Within 30 days, OMB must issue guidance telling federal agencies to restrict eligibility or otherwise disfavor listed jurisdictions for grants to the full extent allowed by law.
• Consultation: The Attorney General must consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security and OMB when making the list.

What it means for you#

• State and local governments

  • If your state or local government meets the bill’s criteria, the Attorney General could put it on a public federal list called “anarchist jurisdictions.”
  • Being listed could lead federal agencies to limit or deprioritize that jurisdiction when deciding who gets discretionary federal grants.
  • Local leaders may face pressure to change policing or funding policies to avoid being listed.

• Law enforcement agencies

  • Federal, state, and local law enforcement may be reviewed as part of the listing process when questions arise about whether a jurisdiction has restricted policing or refused federal help.
  • This could affect cooperation or acceptance of federal assistance, depending on local decisions.

• Recipients of federal grants (municipalities, states, non‑profits that receive pass-through funds)

  • Agencies are directed to disfavor listed jurisdictions when they have lawful discretion. This could reduce the chance of receiving some discretionary grants.
  • The bill does not list specific grants to be withheld; it relies on agency discretion within the law.

• Federal agencies

  • Agencies must follow OMB guidance to the extent they have lawful discretion. They may need to change grant review rules or produce new guidance and procedures.

• General public

  • The list will be public on the Department of Justice website. Citizens can see which jurisdictions are labeled and why, as far as the published criteria reveal.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible budget effects (inferred from the bill text):

• The Department of Justice would need staff time and systems to create and update the list every 180 days. This could raise administrative costs.
• OMB must issue guidance and federal agencies may need to revise grant procedures, which could require staff time and legal review.
• If agencies restrict grants, some jurisdictions could lose federal funding, which would shift costs to local governments or reduce services—how much is not specified.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to identify jurisdictions that refuse reasonable steps to stop violence and property destruction.
• It could be seen as a way to encourage local governments to restore public order by making grant access conditional on certain policing practices.
• Supporters may argue the measure improves public safety by increasing federal oversight of jurisdictions accused of limiting law enforcement.
• The public list could increase transparency about where the federal government believes local governments are failing to control violence.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill’s key term, “refused to take reasonable steps,” is vague. It is unclear what facts or standards will trigger a listing.
• The bill does not explain any process for a jurisdiction to contest or appeal being listed.
• It is unclear how OMB guidance will interact with existing laws that protect certain grant programs or limit conditions on federal funding.
• Rapid deadlines (14 days for the first list; 30 days for OMB guidance) may produce a rushed process with limited review.
• Using grant decisions to influence local policing choices could raise questions about federal overreach into state and local authority.
• The bill does not include a fiscal estimate, so the size of administrative or programmatic costs is unknown.