US Federal House Bill HB3439

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/15/25
• Refer: 5/15/25

Caption

Defund Cities that Defund the Police Act of 2025

Summary

HB3439, titled the “Defund Cities that Defund the Police Act of 2025,” would make states and local governments ineligible for certain federal economic development and community development funds if they are deemed to have “defunded” police. The bill defines a “defunding State” or “defunding locality” as one that abolishes or disbands a law enforcement agency without intending to restore it, or that significantly reduces a police budget without having experienced a significant revenue decline in the prior fiscal year. The definition is limited to states and, for localities, to political subdivisions in urbanized areas; rural police departments are expressly excluded from the locality definition. The bill amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to bar defunding jurisdictions from receiving grants under Economic Development Administration programs and Community Development Block Grant programs. It also requires return and reallocation of funds if a recipient becomes a defunding jurisdiction during the grant period, with returned amounts redirected to eligible jurisdictions in the same state. In practical terms, the bill would add a new federal funding eligibility condition tied to local policing policy and would affect how the Department of Commerce and HUD administer these grant programs. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and available context is strongly policy-driven and punitive toward jurisdictions that reduce police funding, framing the issue as a public safety and crime-prevention measure. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal bipartisan or partisan vote pattern can be identified from the record here. The introduction by Representatives Fitzpatrick and Golden suggests at least some cross-party sponsorship, but the bill has only been referred to subcommittee and has not advanced further in the provided history. The main point of contention is likely the bill’s use of federal grant eligibility to pressure state and local budget decisions, especially decisions about police staffing and appropriations. Supporters would likely view the measure as discouraging policies they associate with increased crime or weakened public safety, while opponents would likely argue that it intrudes on local control, uses a vague and potentially subjective definition of “significantly reduces” police budgets, and could penalize jurisdictions for broader fiscal or public-safety reforms. The carveout for jurisdictions facing significant revenue declines also suggests an attempt to distinguish austerity-driven cuts from policy-driven cuts, but that distinction may itself be disputed in implementation.

Impact

The bill would amend federal grant statutes governing Economic Development Administration assistance and Community Development Block Grants to exclude “defunding States” and “defunding localities” from eligibility. It would also require the return and reallocation of grant funds if a recipient becomes a defunding jurisdiction during the grant period, shifting money to other eligible jurisdictions within the same state. This would create a new federal condition on access to economic development and housing/community development funding and could materially affect state and local governments that reduce police budgets or disband law enforcement agencies.

Sentiment

The available record suggests a generally negative or punitive stance toward jurisdictions that reduce police funding, with the bill presented as a public-safety measure. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. The bipartisan sponsorship indicates the proposal may be intended to appeal across party lines, but the absence of debate history limits any stronger conclusion about legislative support or opposition.

Contention

The central controversy is whether the federal government should condition economic development and community development grants on a jurisdiction’s policing choices. Likely supporters argue that jurisdictions should not receive federal aid while reducing police capacity, while likely opponents argue that the bill punishes local policy decisions, may interfere with home rule, and could be difficult to administer because of the bill’s budget-cut threshold and revenue-loss exception. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s focus on urbanized localities and its exclusion of rural police departments, which may raise fairness and definitional concerns.