SAFE Cities Act Allows Federal Government to Cut Grants to Localities Deemed 'Anarchist Jurisdictions'

The Stop Anarchists From Endangering Cities Act, or the SAFE Cities Act, sets up a direct process for the federal government to financially penalize state and local governments. This bill empowers the Attorney General, working with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to create and regularly update a public list of jurisdictions officially labeled as “anarchist.” This list must be published within 14 days of the bill becoming law, and updated every six months after that. Once a jurisdiction is named, the OMB must issue guidance directing all federal agencies to restrict or otherwise treat that area unfavorably when handing out federal grants, provided the agency has the legal authority to do so.

The Vague Criteria for Being Labeled 'Anarchist'

So, what puts a city or state on this list? The criteria are broad and leave a lot up to the interpretation of federal officials. A jurisdiction qualifies if it refuses to take “reasonable steps” to stop major violence or property destruction. This includes local governments that have policies preventing police from restoring order, have cut funding or power from their law enforcement agencies, or “unreasonably” turn down federal law enforcement help. Notice the subjective terms: reasonable steps and unreasonably—these are not clearly defined, giving the officials doing the labeling significant, high-level discretion. It essentially means the federal government can use its definition of what constitutes proper local policing and funding to judge a city.

The Financial Hammer: What Losing Federal Grants Means for You

This is where the rubber meets the road for everyday people. Federal grants aren't just extra cash; they fund critical services. If your city or state gets placed on this list, the federal government is mandated to treat you “unfavorably” when distributing those grants. Think about what those grants pay for: infrastructure projects like fixing roads and bridges, funding for public transit, school lunch programs, local law enforcement equipment, housing assistance, and even unemployment services. If federal funding is restricted, local governments have to either cut those services, raise local taxes to fill the gap, or both. For example, a city relying on a federal transportation grant to repair a major commuter bridge might see that project halted, leading to worse traffic and longer commutes for everyone who drives or uses the bus.

Undermining Local Control Over Public Safety

One of the most significant impacts here is on local autonomy. The bill targets jurisdictions that have “cut funding or taken power away from its law enforcement agencies.” While the stated goal is public safety, this provision pressures local governments to maintain specific law enforcement budgets and policies, regardless of what local voters or city councils might decide is best for their community. For a city trying to redirect police funding toward mental health services or community programs—a policy choice made at the local level—this bill could force them to reverse course under the threat of losing essential federal dollars for unrelated services like housing or environmental cleanup. It’s a powerful financial lever that centralizes control over local public safety decisions in the hands of federal executive officials.