Strings Attached: Federal Takeover of Local Police Via Grants
As federal funding for local law enforcement increases, so does federal control. Americans must stand up to this stealth assault on freedom — before it’s too late. …
By Peter Rykowski
Local police departments across the United States face a wide range of opposition. Most apparent is from the criminals they seek to deter and bring to justice — police officers not only devote much of their time to stopping such individuals, but risk their lives to do so. Police departments also face opposition from certain segments of society and government institutions. For example, the Defund the Police movement has led to multiple big-city departments facing budget cuts and low morale. Meanwhile, local prosecutors and judges across the country have ignored the law and released criminals onto the streets — threatening the safety of police officers and civilians alike.
However, another threat exists — one often overlooked. Although it’s not at the forefront of people’s minds, it is just as dangerous in the long run as the others, if not more so. This threat is the federal government, specifically its increasing strangulation of, and control over, local police departments through grants and other programs. If not stopped, it will extinguish local control and decimate protection of our God-given, individual rights.
The federal assault on local police can be stopped — but it requires education and action on the part of citizens. In addition to informing themselves and others about the proper scope of government under the U.S. Constitution, concerned Americans must actively pressure their elected officials to govern in accordance with the founding document. By understanding the problem and taking action to promote the solution, we can protect our local police and God-given rights.
Losing Independence
The federal government’s tightening stranglehold on local police did not happen overnight. It has taken decades to get to where we are now. Although it now seems normal — even expected — for the federal government to provide funding for local police departments and other state and local agencies, this scheme is alien to the U.S. Constitution.
The Founding Fathers designed a federal government with limited powers, and intended for the states to retain the vast majority of power. In The Federalist, No. 45, James Madison noted that, under the Constitution, the federal government’s powers are “few and defined,” while the states’ are “numerous and indefinite.” Furthermore, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution unequivocally declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What powers are delegated to the federal government? The answer resides in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It begins by declaring, “The Congress shall have Power,” and then lists 17 specific areas in which Congress has authority to legislate. The section ends by stating that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” (Emphasis added.) Law enforcement is not among those enumerated powers. Congress’ powers — and, by extension, the federal government’s powers — are limited, and the Founding Fathers left no question of this.
For decades after the Constitution’s ratification, the federal government largely — though with exceptions — respected its constitutional limitations. According to a 2019 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, “The prevailing view in Congress [before 1860] was that any power not explicitly provided to Congress in the Constitution was excluded purposively, suggesting that in the absence of specific, supporting constitutional language the exercise of governmental police powers (the regulation of private interests for the protection of public safety, health, and morals; the prevention of fraud and oppression; and the promotion of the general welfare) was either meant to be a state or local government responsibility, or outside the scope of governmental authority altogether.” For this reason, federal grants to state and local governments were virtually nonexistent before the late 19th century.
Even in the rare instances when Congress passed legislation authorizing federal grants, it met strong opposition based on constitutional principles. As an example, the CRS report cites an instance in 1854, when Congress sent a land-grants bill to President Franklin Pierce. Pierce vetoed the bill, and declared in his veto message:
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution making the federal government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and subversive of the whole theory upon which the union of these States is founded…. I respectfully submit that, in a constitutional point of view, it is wholly immaterial whether the appropriation be in money, or in land…. Should this bill become a law … the several States instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their own people, may themselves … become humble supplicants for the bounty of the Federal Government, reversing the state’s true relation to this Union.
Similarly, President Grover Cleveland based his 1887 veto of the Texas Seed Bill, which would have appropriated federal funds to purchase seed grain for farmers in Texas after a drought, on constitutional principles. In his veto message, he noted, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” Cleveland further wrote that such proposals should “be steadfastly resisted,” and that “federal aid … encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.”
Even by 1902, after the trickle of federal grants had already started, only five grants existed. Combined, they comprised less than one percent of total state and local revenue. However, a series of big-government programs and structural changes — including the 16th Amendment, the New Deal, and the Great Society — caused the number and scope of grants to balloon. According to the CRS report, 1,274 federal grants existed by 2018, and according to a 2023 report by the National Association of State Budget Officers, 35.3 percent of state expenditures came from the federal government. This funding covers a wide range of subjects, from housing to the environment, that the federal government has no constitutional authority over. Local law enforcement has not been spared by this growth in federal interference.
Federal Grants
Federal funding of law enforcement began in the 1930s following President Herbert Hoover’s Wickersham Commission, which issued two reports criticizing the effectiveness of local police. This funding expanded and became entrenched in the 1960s with the passage of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The new federal grants were initially administered by the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance from 1965 to 1968, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration from 1968 to 1982. Today, dozens of federal law-enforcement grants and programs exist, far more than this article can cover. Nonetheless, it’s important to highlight the key agencies involved in the federal stealth assault on local and independent police.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), is one such agency. Created in 1984 out of a reorganization of DOJ agencies, the OJP describes itself as “the largest grantmaking component of the Department of Justice.” The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a subagency of the OJP, administers many of these grants. The largest such grant is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG), which the BJA describes as “the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions.” The JAG funds various law-enforcement activities, corrections, criminal-prosecution activities, the “implementation of state crisis intervention courts,” and more. The BJA specifies “areas of emphasis” that it encourages (but doesn’t require) JAG recipients to prioritize, including through “coordination with federal law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders.” In fiscal 2023, these areas included “Advancing Justice System Reform Efforts,” “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities,” and “Preventing and Combating Hate Crimes.” According to the BJA, since fiscal 2005, the JAG has provided more than $7.6 billion in grants to state and local governments.
Other BJA grant programs include the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Program, which encourages states and localities to “investigat[e] and prosecut[e]” so-called hate crimes, a subjective category that effectively creates favored classes of citizens in criminal prosecutions. Other OJP/BJA grants promote the purchase and implementation of body-worn cameras and bulletproof vests by law-enforcement agencies, among other goals. As implied above, the BJA also administers funding to local prosecutors, provided they comply with certain federal requirements.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), created in 1994, is another DOJ agency heavily involved in funding local law enforcement. The agency boasts of having “appropriated more than $20 billion to help advance community policing” since its creation. Many COPS grants seek to influence local law-enforcement activities. For example, the Community Policing Development grant program entices police departments to implement practices such as de-escalation training, crisis intervention, and countering “hate crimes and domestic extremism.” Additionally, the COPS Hiring Program inserts the federal government into local departments’ hiring and retention of officers.
Multiple federal law-enforcement programs outside the OJP and COPS also exist. For example, the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) 1033 Program allows local law-enforcement agencies to receive surplus military equipment, and the 1122 Program, jointly administered by the DLA and the General Services Administration, allows them to “purchase equipment suitable for counter-drug, homeland security, and emergency response activities.” These programs promote and enable the militarization of police departments, encouraging them to resemble the U.S. armed forces rather than local law enforcement.
Federal funding of local law-enforcement activities and equipment might sound positive — after all, what could be wrong with providing our police officers with additional resources to do their jobs? However, it threatens the independence of local police departments, promotes greater federal control, and — by extension — weakens the protection of Americans’ God-given rights.
When local police receive large amounts of funding from external sources — in this case, the federal government — they become dependent on those sources, making them willing to follow the federal government’s wishes and preferences in order to continue receiving the support. Additionally, federal funding always comes with strings attached. Local police departments must do something — such as adopt certain policies or practices — in exchange for that funding. Because of this, federal grants are a powerful tool to turn local police into federal agents.
Federal grants also undermine the principle of federalism — a key firewall protecting citizens from government infringements on their God-given rights. In The Federalist, No. 51, Madison noted that it is “necessary to control the abuses of government,” and advocated robust checks and balances — both between the three branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments. In fact, Madison noted that in America’s federalist system, which divides power within and between the federal and state governments, “a double security arises to the rights of the people.” By unconstitutionally meddling in and influencing a different level of government, federal funding compromises the principle of federalism and — by extension — protections of citizens’ individual rights.
Police departments have become heavily reliant on federal grants. According to Andrea Edmiston, director of governmental affairs for the National Association of Police Organizations, in a July 2023 interview with Roll Call, “It’s reached the point where state and local law enforcement agencies — a lot of them, right — rely on federal funding to make their budgets work.” Such dependence on the federal government is not healthy, and is detrimental to federalism and the vertical separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.
If not stopped, this will lead to the eventual federal takeover of local law-enforcement agencies, effectively creating a national police force. This is already underway, including in the form of Fusion Centers — state-run facilities used to strengthen information sharing between the federal government and states and localities. Currently, 80 such facilities exist, in every U.S. state and most territories. Although information sharing on a case-by-case basis — and as equal partners — is not inherently problematic, a formalized arrangement via fusion centers is a major step toward turning local law enforcement into mere agents of the federal government. States and localities must reject federal law-enforcement grants and integration schemes with federal agencies.
Looking Ahead
The political winds in Washington, D.C., have shifted significantly in recent months. In addition to Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, Republicans gained unified control over Congress for the first time in six years, taking over the U.S. Senate and holding the House. What implications will this have on federal meddling in local law enforcement?
In order to look ahead, it’s helpful to examine the recent past. In September 2022, the U.S. House passed multiple bills that would have expanded federal grants to local law-enforcement agencies. Most prominently, it passed H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act of 2022, by a 360-64 vote. If enacted, it would have expanded grants to police departments with fewer than 125 employees. Although the Senate separately passed a companion bill, H.R. 6448 ultimately didn’t become law.
That same month, the House passed three other bills — the Break the Cycle of Violence Act (H.R. 4118), the Mental Health Justice Act of 2022 (H.R. 8542), and the VICTIM Act of 2022 (H.R. 5768) — that also would have expanded federal grants to local police departments. Despite passing by wide margins, they stalled in the Senate and did not become law.
However, in May 2024, Congress passed — and President Joe Biden signed into law — S. 546, the Recruit and Retain Act, which expanded how COPS grants may be used and awarded. The Senate passed S. 546 by unanimous consent, and only 18 U.S. representatives voted against the bill. Republican leadership in the 119th Congress, which began on January 3, shows no indication of reversing course on federal grants.
Additionally, the Left has attempted to weaponize federal police grants to coerce local law enforcement to adopt radical policies. Under the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, most recently introduced in 2024 as H.R. 8525 and S. 4991, police departments receiving OJP funding would be required to implement a training program to counter “racial profiling” and “implicit bias” and prohibit certain restraining tactics, such as chokeholds, among other radical policies. The Left will likely continue advocating similar legislation, even while in opposition. Regardless of political-party affiliation or control, Congress largely supports unconstitutional federal involvement in law enforcement.
Will President Trump reverse this federal encroachment into local law enforcement? Unfortunately, early indications are not promising. Among Trump’s 2024 campaign promises listed in his “Agenda47” plan, he pledged to “sign a record investment in hiring, retention, and training for police officers.” This would necessitate another expansion of federal grants. Other aspects of his campaign plan — although promising to implement conservative-leaning crime policies — would maintain existing federal involvement in local law enforcement, rather than a much-needed and constitutionally required reduction.
Accordingly, Trump and congressional Republicans — along with Democrats — appear set to maintain, if not increase, unconstitutional federal meddling in local police. To guide them away from this disastrous route, Americans must get involved.
Taking Action
What can we do to protect local police and roll back federal overreach? First, it is essential that we inform our local police departments, state and local elected officials, and fellow citizens about the dangers of federal grants and involvement in law enforcement — and the importance of following the U.S. Constitution and rejecting unconstitutional acts. Success will begin only when a sufficient proportion of the electorate understands America’s founding principles. So, it’s important to meet with elected officials and police chiefs, hold public educational events, and take all other possible actions to inform others about the importance of keeping local police independent from federal funding and influence. A recommended tool for informing others is the “Make America STATES Again” reprint (originally published in the October 14, 2024 issue of The New American), which explains the constitutional limitations of the federal government and gives specific recommendations for restoring adherence to America’s founding principles.
State and local officials will likely respond by noting the difficulty — politically and operationally — of rejecting federal grants. This critique has merit, since state and local law enforcement have grown accustomed to and dependent on federal funding. However, inconvenience does not excuse our elected officials from following the U.S. Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold. And constitutionally, authority over law enforcement is “reserved to the States” per the 10th Amendment. Funding local police departments is a matter for the states, not the federal government. Achieving this will require a paradigm shift in thinking, including ending the expectation that the federal government should provide unconstitutional funding to states and localities, and ensuring that state governments adjust their spending priorities to align with America’s founding principles.
Additionally, we must hold our local, state, and federal officials accountable. Are they voting for or supporting federal law-enforcement grants? Or are they advocating constitutional proposals to eliminate such grants, or state and local acceptance of them? Unfortunately, accepting federal funding is politically easy, and most elected officials oppose the notion of rejecting federal grants — despite their detrimental effects on state sovereignty and local control. Accordingly, voters must vigilantly pressure their officials to uphold constitutional principles and reject federal overreach.
To help citizens accomplish this, The New American publishes the Freedom Index and Congressional and Legislative Scorecards, which rate state and federal legislators based on their adherence to constitutional principles. This includes votes related to federal police grants, which blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution. The Freedom Index and Scorecards can be viewed and printed for free at TheFreedomIndex.org. Distribute them to inform others about their legislators’ performance.
These and other actions require organization to be effective, and The John Birch Society, the parent organization of The New American, provides this. JBS members across the country work tirelessly — and in a concerted manner — to promote constitutional government and inform Americans about their country’s founding principles, including limited government and local, independent police. By working together, we can restore adherence to the U.S. Constitution and prevent the creation of a national police force. Get started by visiting JBS.org.
Published with permission of thenewamerican.com