No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 7, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance congressional oversight over domestic military deployments and strengthen local law enforcement, potentially limiting executive authority in domestic emergencies while providing significant federal funding.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new congressional mechanism allowing for the termination of exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act and certain National Guard activations through a joint resolution of disapproval. It also appropriates $900 million in emergency funding for state and local law enforcement programs, including justice assistance grants, community violence intervention, emergency assistance, and community-oriented policing hiring.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill reinforces civilian control over the military, prevents the militarization of domestic law enforcement, and provides essential resources to state and local agencies, thereby reducing the perceived need for federal military intervention in local matters.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill could unduly restrict the executive branch's flexibility and speed in responding to rapidly evolving domestic crises, potentially hindering effective emergency management or national security operations by introducing additional procedural hurdles.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a quick review by an informed reader.
Section 2 of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 1385
Congressional Disapproval of Military Deployments for Domestic Law Enforcement
This provision amends the Posse Comitatus Act to allow Congress to terminate any exception that permits the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement. It establishes a process for Congress to enact a joint resolution of disapproval, specifying the location, military actions prohibited, and duration of the prohibition.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision enhances civilian control over the military and prevents the militarization of domestic law enforcement, reinforcing democratic principles by ensuring congressional approval or disapproval of such deployments.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that this could hinder the executive branch's ability to respond rapidly and decisively to domestic emergencies or civil unrest, potentially compromising public safety or national security by introducing political delays.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between maintaining executive flexibility for rapid response in emergencies and ensuring robust congressional oversight to prevent potential abuses of military power in domestic contexts.
Section 2(c) of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 1385
Expedited Congressional Review Process for Disapproval Resolutions
This section details an expedited legislative procedure for a joint resolution of disapproval in both the Senate and House. It includes specific rules for committee referral (5 calendar days in Senate, 2 in House), discharge from committee, and limited debate time, designed to fast-track congressional action on these resolutions.
Section 3 of the bill, amending 10 U.S.C. 12406
Congressional Disapproval of National Guard Activations for Domestic Use
This section extends the same congressional disapproval mechanism established in Section 2 to activations of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406. This means Congress can pass a joint resolution to terminate federal activations of the National Guard for certain domestic purposes.
Section 4(a) of the bill
Emergency Appropriations for Justice Assistance Grants and Violence Prevention
This section appropriates $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 for fiscal year 2026. These funds are designated as an emergency requirement.
Section 4(b) of the bill
Funding for Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring
This provision appropriates an additional $100 million for fiscal year 2026, to remain available until expended, for grants to hire and rehire additional career law enforcement officers under the Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.
Section 4(c) of the bill
Restriction on Funding for Federal Law Enforcement Deployment
This subsection explicitly prohibits any of the $900 million appropriated under Section 4 from being used to fund the assignment of federal law enforcement personnel to states and localities.
This clause states that if a joint resolution of disapproval is not introduced or enacted, no court or agency may infer any intent of Congress from such action or inaction with regard to the deployment of Armed Forces.
Section 2(c)(5)
Why it matters:While a common legislative drafting technique, this clause serves to prevent judicial overreach or misinterpretation of congressional silence, and can also protect members from political fallout if they choose not to act on a controversial deployment.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is essential for maintaining the separation of powers, preventing courts from legislating from the bench by interpreting congressional inaction as either approval or disapproval of executive actions.
Case against: Critics might argue that this clause could be used to shield Congress from accountability for failing to act on controversial military deployments, as their inaction cannot be legally interpreted as a stance.
Estimated impact: This provision affects judicial review and interpretation of congressional intent regarding military deployments, potentially limiting the scope of legal challenges based on congressional silence.
These severability clauses state that if any provision of the respective sections, or their application to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the section and its application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 2(d) and Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect the remainder of a bill if one part is struck down by a court, ensuring that the core policy goals can still be achieved even if specific provisions face legal challenges.
Case for: Proponents argue that severability clauses are crucial for ensuring the resilience of legislation, allowing important policy objectives to proceed even if minor or contested provisions are invalidated.
Case against: There is generally no direct opposition to severability clauses, as they are legal safeguards rather than substantive policy provisions.
Estimated impact: These clauses protect the enforceability of the bill's other provisions in case of partial invalidation, ensuring the core mechanisms for congressional oversight and funding remain intact.
This subsection designates the $900 million appropriated in Section 4(a) and (b) as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress) and legislation establishing fiscal year 2026 budget enforcement in the House of Representatives.
Section 4(d)
Why it matters:While common, emergency designations can be controversial as they allow spending to bypass normal budget constraints and caps. Placing it at the end of the funding section can make it less conspicuous to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that this designation allows for critical funding to be provided without requiring offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget, addressing urgent needs related to public safety and avoiding military deployments.
Case against: Critics often argue that emergency designations are overused, undermining fiscal discipline and transparency by allowing significant spending outside of regular budget processes and potentially contributing to the national debt.
Estimated impact: This designation exempts $900 million in spending from normal budget caps for fiscal year 2026, potentially increasing the national debt if not offset by other measures.