SAFE Cities Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal mechanism to label jurisdictions as "anarchist" based on their handling of civil unrest and then uses that designation to potentially withhold federal grant funding.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to identify and publish a list of "anarchist jurisdictions." These are defined as state or local governments that have refused to take reasonable steps to stop violence and property destruction. Furthermore, the bill mandates the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to federal agencies on how to restrict or disfavor these designated jurisdictions from receiving federal grants, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides a necessary tool for the federal government to address perceived failures of state and local governments to maintain law and order, particularly in the face of widespread violence or destruction. They contend it incentivizes jurisdictions to take stronger action against unrest and ensures federal funds are not supporting areas that are seen as undermining public safety and the rule of law.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill federalizes local policing decisions, potentially politicizing law enforcement and creating a punitive system that could disproportionately harm communities already struggling. They might contend that the definition of "anarchist jurisdiction" is vague and open to subjective interpretation, leading to arbitrary designations and the weaponization of federal funding, infringing on local autonomy.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are broad and require significant consideration of its potential impacts on federalism, local governance, and community services.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Stop Anarchists From Endangering Cities Act," also known as the "SAFE Cities Act." This designation provides a concise and memorable name for the legislation, which would be used in public discourse and legislative references. The short title serves to immediately communicate the bill's perceived purpose: to address issues related to urban unrest and property destruction by targeting jurisdictions deemed to be failing in their response.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a clear and impactful short title helps communicate the bill's purpose and intent to the public and facilitates legislative discourse, emphasizing the goal of public safety.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles unless the title itself is deemed misleading or inflammatory, which could be argued here given the term "Anarchists."
Tradeoffs
The title "SAFE Cities Act" aims to convey a sense of public safety, while the full title "Stop Anarchists From Endangering Cities Act" explicitly names the perceived threat, potentially polarizing public perception from the outset.
Section 2
Definition of Anarchist Jurisdiction
This section provides the foundational definition for an "anarchist jurisdiction," identifying it as a State or unit of local government that has demonstrably "refused to take reasonable steps to stop acts of violence and destruction of property" within its geographical boundaries. This specific definition is critical because it establishes the legal predicate for all subsequent federal actions outlined in the bill, including the identification process and the potential restriction of federal grants. The interpretation of "reasonable steps" and the scope of "acts of violence and destruction" will be key to how this definition is applied in practice.
Section 3(a)
Publication of Anarchist Jurisdictions List
This provision mandates the Attorney General, in close consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to publicly identify and publish a list of all designated anarchist jurisdictions. This initial list must be made available on the Department of Justice website within a swift 14-day timeframe following the bill's enactment. Furthermore, the Attorney General is required to regularly update this list, with revisions occurring no less frequently than once every 180 days, ensuring ongoing federal oversight and public awareness of these designations.
Section 3(b)
Criteria for Designating Anarchist Jurisdictions
This section specifies the critical considerations that the Attorney General, in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, must weigh when determining whether a State or local government qualifies as an anarchist jurisdiction. These factors include assessing if a jurisdiction has policies that prevent or restrict law enforcement from restoring order, if it has prevented police from patrolling certain areas, if it has disempowered or defunded its law enforcement agencies, or if it has unreasonably rejected offers of federal law enforcement assistance. These criteria provide the operational framework for the designation process.
Section 3(c)
Restriction of Federal Grants to Anarchist Jurisdictions
This section mandates that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) develop and issue comprehensive guidance to all federal agencies within 30 days of the Act's enactment. This guidance will specifically instruct agency heads on how to restrict the eligibility of, or otherwise disfavor, designated anarchist jurisdictions when allocating federal grants. Crucially, these restrictions are limited to the maximum extent permitted by existing law and only apply to grants where the federal agency possesses sufficient lawful discretion to implement such disfavoring policies, thereby outlining the legal boundaries of this federal intervention.
The guidance from OMB on restricting federal grants to anarchist jurisdictions must be "to the maximum extent permitted by law" and only for grants where the Federal agency "has sufficient lawful discretion to restrict or otherwise disfavor anarchist jurisdictions from receiving."
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to acknowledge existing legal frameworks and avoid overstepping federal authority. It indicates an awareness of potential legal challenges to withholding funds and attempts to preemptively address them by deferring to existing legal boundaries.
Case for: Supporters would argue this language demonstrates respect for the rule of law and ensures that any actions taken under the Act are legally defensible, preventing overreach and potential court challenges that could invalidate the entire program.
Case against: Critics might argue that this language creates a significant loophole, allowing federal agencies to avoid restricting grants if they claim insufficient lawful discretion, thereby weakening the bill's intended punitive impact and making its enforcement inconsistent.
Estimated impact: This phrase could significantly limit the practical scope and financial impact of the grant restrictions, potentially affecting billions in federal aid depending on legal interpretations of agency discretion and statutory authority for various grant programs.