S-768-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
The bill would create a Justice Department grant program, run by the COPS Office, for counties, towns, and Tribal governments that employ fewer than 175 officers. Grant money could be used only for listed items, such as de-escalation and safety training, officer behavioral health services, signing and retention bonuses, and graduate-education stipends. It would authorize up to $50 million a year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, require a streamlined application plan, and require audits, public disclosure of bonuses, and bans on grants for recipients with unresolved audit findings. Other limits apply.
Who benefits
Small and mid-sized local and Tribal police agencies (under 175 officers) that could pay for training and recruitment. Officers who could receive training, behavioral health care, bonuses, or education stipends. Residents and crime victims, including domestic violence victims and people in mental health crises, who may encounter better-trained officers. Local governments that would get a short application process and technical help.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would bear up to $250 million over five years if fully appropriated. Agencies with 175 or more officers, which would be ineligible. Grantees that could lose eligibility for three years after an unresolved audit finding and face reporting and bonus-disclosure duties. Departments that do not win grants and may struggle to compete on pay with those that do. Other programs, if funds are diverted from them in appropriations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that small departments often lack the budgets for modern training, mental health care, and competitive pay, and that this narrowly targeted program would fill that gap. They contend the bipartisan sponsor list, the 2-hour application goal, the audit and exclusion rules, and the bonus disclosure requirements show a design that is both accessible and accountable. They also argue that retention and training spending could improve officer safety and community interactions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal bonuses for hiring and retention could prompt bidding among departments without improving policing quality, and that the bill sets no minimum evidence standard for outcomes. They contend that policing is primarily a local responsibility funded locally, and that up to $250 million over five years could be spent on other priorities. They also argue the audit-based exclusions and reporting rules may burden the very small agencies the bill aims to help.
Constitutional context
Congress funds this program under its Article I, Section 8 Spending Clause power, which South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows if conditions are clearly stated and related to the federal interest. Because grants are voluntary and do not compel states to act, no significant anti-commandeering issue (Printz v. United States, 1997) appears to arise.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ's COPS Office) gains discretion to award grants, checked by Congress through appropriations limits, reporting requirements, and Inspector General audits.
Historical precedent
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created the COPS grant program for local police hiring and community policing, and Byrne JAG grants have long funded local law enforcement.