No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to reassert congressional oversight over the deployment of military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes while simultaneously bolstering state and local law enforcement capabilities with significant federal funding.
What it actually does
This bill amends titles 18 and 10 of the U.S. Code to grant Congress explicit authority to terminate exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act through a specific joint resolution of disapproval process. Concurrently, it appropriates $900 million for fiscal year 2026 for state and local law enforcement programs, including grants for community violence intervention and policing, while prohibiting the use of these funds for federal law enforcement personnel assignments to states and localities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill strengthens democratic checks and balances by ensuring Congress can prevent or halt the use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement, thereby upholding the principle of civilian control and preventing potential abuses. They also contend that providing substantial funding to state and local law enforcement will enhance public safety and reduce the perceived need for military intervention.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could hinder the executive branch's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies requiring military support, potentially jeopardizing national security or public order in critical situations. Some may also question the effectiveness or necessity of the specific funding allocations for local law enforcement, or argue that it represents an overreach into executive authority.
The bill is concise, allowing for a thorough reading and understanding within a reasonable timeframe, especially given its significant policy implications.
Section 2(a) of the bill, amending Section 1385 of title 18, United States Code.
Congressional Authority to Terminate Posse Comitatus Exceptions
This provision amends the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) to explicitly grant Congress the power to terminate any authorized exception to the prohibition on using the Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement. This termination is to be done through a specific 'joint resolution of disapproval' process detailed elsewhere in the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision restores a crucial check on executive power, ensuring that decisions regarding the deployment of military forces within the U.S. for law enforcement purposes are subject to democratic oversight and accountability. It prevents potential overreach and reinforces the principle of civilian control over the military.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could unduly constrain the President's ability to act decisively in urgent domestic crises where military assistance is deemed necessary, potentially delaying critical responses and endangering public safety. They may view it as an infringement on executive prerogatives.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for executive flexibility in emergencies against the desire for robust congressional oversight and the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military.
Section 2(a) of the bill, adding subsection (c) to Section 1385 of title 18, United States Code.
Expedited Congressional Procedure for Joint Resolutions of Disapproval
This section defines the specific format and expedited legislative procedures for a 'joint resolution of disapproval' in both the House and Senate. It includes rules for introduction, committee referral (5 calendar days for Senate, 2 for House before discharge), floor consideration, debate limits, and handling of veto messages, designed to ensure a swift vote on such resolutions.
Section 2(b) of the bill, amending Section 12406 of title 10, United States Code.
Congressional Authority to Terminate National Guard Activations
This provision extends the congressional termination authority, using the same joint resolution of disapproval mechanism defined in 18 U.S.C. 1385(c), to activations of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406. This section of code deals with the President's authority to call up the National Guard for federal service in certain circumstances.
Section 3(a) of the bill.
Emergency Appropriations for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
This section appropriates $800 million for fiscal year 2026, designated as an emergency requirement. This includes $600 million for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, $150 million for a community violence intervention and prevention initiative, and $50 million for emergency law enforcement assistance. These funds are to remain available until expended.
Section 3(b) of the bill.
Funding for Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring
This section appropriates an additional $100 million for fiscal year 2026, also designated as an emergency requirement, specifically for grants to hire and rehire additional career law enforcement officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. These funds also remain available until expended.
Section 3(c) of the bill.
Prohibition on Funding Federal Law Enforcement Personnel Assignments
This provision explicitly prohibits any of the funds appropriated in Section 3 (totaling $900 million) from being used to fund the assignment of federal law enforcement personnel to states and localities.
These clauses state that if any provision of the respective sections, or its application, is found unconstitutional, the remainder of the section and its other applications will not be affected.
Section 2(a) (adding 18 U.S.C. 1385(d)) and Section 2(b) (adding 10 U.S.C. 12406(d)).
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to protect the enforceability of the rest of the law if one part is struck down.
Case for: Supporters argue severability clauses are crucial for legislative stability, ensuring that the core intent of a bill can survive even if minor or controversial provisions are invalidated by courts.
Case against: Critics might argue that severability can sometimes lead to unintended policy outcomes if a court strikes down a provision that was integral to the original legislative compromise, leaving a potentially unbalanced law in place.
Estimated impact: Ensures the primary policy changes regarding congressional oversight would remain in effect even if specific procedural details were challenged.
States that if a joint resolution of disapproval with respect to the deployment of the Armed Forces in a particular location is not introduced or enacted, no court or agency may infer any intent of Congress from any action or inaction of Congress with regard to such joint resolution of disapproval.
Section 2(a) of the bill, adding 18 U.S.C. 1385(c)(5).
Why it matters:Likely intended to prevent judicial or executive bodies from interpreting congressional silence as approval or disapproval of military deployments, thus preserving Congress's flexibility and preventing unintended legal precedents.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause protects Congress from having its inaction misinterpreted, ensuring that only explicit legislative action (or inaction) carries legal weight regarding its intent.
Case against: Critics might argue that this clause attempts to limit judicial review or interpretation of legislative history, which could be seen as an overreach into the judiciary's role.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the legal weight of congressional silence regarding military deployments, potentially limiting future legal arguments based on implied consent or disapproval.