Federal Crime Grants Threatened: Localities Must Keep Cash Bail for Vandalism and Rioting to Keep Funding

The “Keep Violent Criminals Off Our Streets Act” is short, but its impact on local criminal justice budgets could be huge. Starting October 1st after the bill passes, the Attorney General must cut off federal grants—specifically those under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act—to any state or local government that has a policy that “significantly limits the use of cash bail” for people charged with certain crimes.

The Federal Hand on Local Bail Policy

This is a direct financial lever aimed at reversing or halting local efforts toward bail reform. If your city or county wants to keep this federal money flowing, they essentially have to maintain a cash bail option for a new, expanded list of “covered offenses.” This means that the federal government is using critical public safety funding—money often used for things like police equipment, training, and community violence prevention programs—to dictate how local courts handle pre-trial release.

What Counts as a “Covered Offense”?

Here’s where the bill gets specific, and potentially problematic for local jurisdictions. The list of “covered offenses” is broad, including serious violent crimes like murder, rape, and carjacking. That’s what most people would expect in a bill titled this way. However, the list also sweeps in public disorder offenses like vandalism, looting, rioting, and running away from a police officer. This is a significant expansion. For a local government to keep its federal grant money, it can’t limit cash bail for someone accused of a riot, but also for someone accused of minor vandalism.

The Real-World Cost of Compliance

Consider a county that implemented reforms to stop holding low-risk defendants who can’t afford $500 bail for minor property crimes. Under this Act, that jurisdiction would likely lose its federal funding unless it reinstates cash bail for all offenses on this expanded list, including those public disorder crimes. This creates a no-win scenario: either they maintain policies that critics argue disproportionately jail poor people awaiting trial for non-violent offenses, or they lose essential federal dollars for their police force and local justice system.

For the individual, especially those with lower incomes, this means that an accusation of a public disorder offense could lead to pre-trial detention simply because they can’t afford the cash bail amount, even if they pose no flight risk or danger. This effectively uses federal funding to reinforce a system where liberty is tied to wealth for a wide array of alleged crimes, from serious felonies down to minor property destruction.