Secret Service-Local Law Enforcement Partnership Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 9, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to alleviate the financial burden on local jurisdictions for providing security at private residences of Secret Service protectees by establishing a federal reimbursement program.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Extraordinary Protection Reimbursement Program within the Department of Homeland Security. This program will provide grants to state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies to reimburse them for costs incurred in providing protection for non-governmental properties of individuals protected by the Secret Service, such as former presidents and major candidates. Reimbursement is specifically for expenses that exceed typical law enforcement operations and are directly attributable to these protection activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that local law enforcement agencies often incur significant, unbudgeted costs when providing security for Secret Service protectees at their private residences. This program would ensure these agencies are fairly compensated for their extraordinary efforts, preventing local taxpayers from bearing the full burden of what is essentially a federal responsibility. It also promotes better coordination and resource allocation for critical security operations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that this program could create an open-ended liability for federal taxpayers, potentially subsidizing security costs that local jurisdictions should already be prepared to manage as part of their general public safety duties. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for misuse of funds or the administrative overhead required to manage such a reimbursement program effectively, especially given the specific criteria for eligible expenses.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it easy for an informed reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2
Program Establishment and Purpose
This section creates a new program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called the "Extraordinary Protection Reimbursement Program." Its purpose is to give grants to state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to pay them back for security activities directly related to protecting the private properties of individuals under Secret Service protection, as defined by existing law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program addresses a long-standing financial strain on local governments, which often bear substantial, unbudgeted costs for federal security mandates. It ensures that essential protection for high-profile individuals does not unduly burden local budgets.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this program shifts costs from local budgets to the federal budget, potentially creating a new entitlement without sufficient oversight, or that local agencies should already factor such occasional security needs into their operational budgets.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between ensuring federal protectees receive adequate security without bankrupting local jurisdictions, versus concerns about federal overreach into local budgeting and potential for cost-shifting.
Sections 3 and 4
Grant Eligibility and Permitted Expenditures
To receive a grant, a law enforcement agency must certify that the funds will only cover costs above their normal operating expenses, directly linked to protecting a non-governmental property. Funds can be used for personnel (man-hours on patrols or posts) and equipment explicitly for property protection, with Secret Service approval for equipment. Reimbursement is only for protection provided when the protectee is physically present at, or traveling to or from, the property.
Section 6
Program Oversight and Transparency
This section mandates robust oversight for the program. The DHS Inspector General must conduct an annual audit and report findings to Congress. Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit an annual report to relevant congressional committees, detailing the total grants disbursed, identifying each grantee, the amount received, total man-hours spent on protection, and an itemized list of equipment acquired with grant funds.
The bill defines the scope of "persons protected" by referencing specific paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. 3056 and "non-governmental properties as designated in the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976".
Section 2
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure legal precision by incorporating existing definitions and authorities by reference. It's not necessarily evasive, but it does require external knowledge.
Case for: Referencing existing law ensures consistency with established Secret Service protection mandates and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting definitions. It streamlines the bill by building upon existing legal frameworks.
Case against: For a general audience, relying on external legal citations makes the bill less accessible and requires additional research to fully understand the scope of individuals whose properties would be covered.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the specific individuals (e.g., former Presidents, their spouses, minor children, major presidential/VP candidates) whose non-governmental properties would trigger reimbursement eligibility for local law enforcement.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report within 180 days on the implementation of recommendations from a specific Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report dated July 28, 2023, and to ensure future implementation of each such recommendation.
Section 5
Why it matters:This is likely included to address specific, identified issues or concerns raised by a recent audit, ensuring that the new program incorporates lessons learned. It's a targeted directive rather than a general policy statement.
Case for: Ensures that the new reimbursement program is built upon best practices and addresses any prior deficiencies identified by oversight bodies, promoting efficiency and preventing past mistakes.
Case against: Without access to the specific IG report, it's difficult for a reader to fully understand the implications of these recommendations or whether they are adequately addressed. Some might argue that such specific directives should be more explicitly detailed if they significantly shape the program's operation.
Estimated impact: Directs DHS to incorporate specific improvements or changes into the program's design and operation, potentially affecting its efficiency, accountability, or scope.