The Trump administration is offering nearly $300 million to a small group of U.S. cities willing to dramatically expand policing and public-safety programs, but the federal money comes with significant conditions involving immigration enforcement, homelessness policy and future federal intervention.
The Justice Department’s new Model Cities Initiative, or MCI, will select between two and four communities for three-year cooperative agreements designed to reduce violent crime and create public-safety strategies that can later be replicated elsewhere.
Eligible jurisdictions generally must serve populations of at least 100,000, and applications are due September 1. The Justice Department says the program is modeled partly on federal law-enforcement operations in Memphis and Washington, D.C., which the administration credits with significant reductions in violent crime.
The funding could be used for a wide range of purposes. Cities can seek money to hire police officers and other personnel, expand real-time crime centers, purchase body cameras, license-plate readers and other technology, improve forensic capabilities, support victims and strengthen substance-use and mental-health programs.
TRENDING TODAY
But winning the money requires much more than submitting a traditional policing proposal.
The Justice Department says applicants must align their plans with federal priorities that include directly supporting law-enforcement operations — including immigration enforcement — combating violent crime and enforcing restrictions involving open drug use, urban camping, loitering and squatting. The guidance also promotes assisted outpatient treatment and, where legally permitted, civil commitment for certain people with serious mental-health or substance-use problems.
Cities receiving funds would also be prohibited from using supported programs in ways the department says obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The grant documents specifically reference providing access to Department of Homeland Security agents, honoring certain DHS requests and complying with federal immigration-information requirements.
That creates a potential obstacle for cities whose local governments have adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Another unusual provision concerns what could happen if crime or public disorder later increases.
The grant notice says recipients will be subject to a condition requiring reimbursement for certain costs associated with future federal law-enforcement intervention or assistance during a surge in violent crime or public disorder. The precise terms would be included in individual awards.
That means a city receiving tens of millions of dollars today could potentially face a financial obligation later if federal authorities intervene under circumstances covered by the final agreement.
The structure also gives the Justice Department an unusually hands-on role.
MCI awards will be cooperative agreements rather than ordinary grants, allowing DOJ to remain substantially involved in planning and implementation throughout the three-year funding period. Applicants must commit in writing to working closely with the department and, when appropriate, receiving direction from federal officials.
Cities also need broad local political support before they can compete.
Applications must document backing from officials including the mayor, city manager, prosecutor, sheriff, local governing body, health and human-services leadership and the official responsible for community supervision. That requirement could make applications difficult in politically divided cities where police, county and municipal leaders disagree over federal policy.
The final selection process will also place significant authority in the hands of senior Justice Department officials.
After the first round of applications, DOJ will publish a list of finalists. Those jurisdictions will then make presentations to department leadership and could participate in city or site visits. Final recipients will be chosen by senior DOJ leadership based on the written application, presentation and alignment with the program’s goals.
The administration argues that the approach will allow cities to combine enforcement, technology, treatment and prevention rather than relying on a single strategy. DOJ says it wants the selected communities to demonstrate measurable crime reductions that can serve as national models.
Critics are likely to focus less on whether cities need additional police resources and more on what they must accept in exchange.
A city could potentially receive enough money to hire significant numbers of officers, upgrade technology and expand treatment programs, while simultaneously agreeing to immigration-cooperation requirements and policies dealing with homelessness that local elected officials may otherwise oppose.
For taxpayers, the reimbursement language deserves particular attention. The grant documents establish the general requirement, but the exact circumstances that could trigger repayment — and how large those obligations could become — will depend on the terms of the eventual awards.
Several other details are still unresolved. DOJ has not yet named the finalists, so it is unclear which major cities will ultimately agree to the full set of requirements. The department also has not publicly established exactly how any future reimbursement for federal intervention would be calculated.
That uncertainty could make the next few weeks a significant test of how attractive $300 million in federal public-safety funding remains when accepting it also means adopting Washington’s preferred approach to several politically divisive local issues.
Why It Matters
The Model Cities Initiative could give a handful of cities an unusually large injection of federal money for police officers, technology, treatment programs and other public-safety services.
But the program could also reshape local policy. Communities receiving funding must align themselves with federal priorities involving immigration enforcement, street homelessness and law-and-order strategies while accepting ongoing DOJ involvement.
For residents and taxpayers, the central question is therefore not simply how much money a city can receive, but what legal, financial and policy commitments come with it.
What Comes Next
Cities have until September 1 to submit applications. DOJ will then select finalists and invite them to make presentations before senior department officials choose between two and four recipients.
Once finalists become public, attention will likely shift to which local governments are willing to accept the program’s conditions — and which conclude that the potential federal funding is not worth the trade-offs.
