HB3920, the “Lawless Cities Accountability Act of 2025,” would prohibit federal funds from being made available to any state or local jurisdiction that the Attorney General determines is a “lawless jurisdiction.” The bill directs the Attorney General to make those determinations within 30 days of enactment and at least quarterly thereafter, and to publicly release both the determinations and an explanation for each one.
The bill defines a “lawless jurisdiction” as a state or political subdivision that, among other things, bars law enforcement from intervening during widespread or sustained violence, withdraws law enforcement protection from certain areas or structures, disempowers or defunds law enforcement agencies, or refuses a federal law-enforcement assistance offer during unrest when local authorities cannot restore order. A jurisdiction could resume receiving federal funds either 180 days after it is first designated, or sooner if the Attorney General later determines it is no longer lawless.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a new federal funding restriction tied to the Attorney General’s assessment of local public-safety policies and responses to unrest. It would affect states, counties, cities, and other political subdivisions by conditioning access to federal funds on compliance with the bill’s standards, and it would give the Department of Justice a central role in identifying and publicly listing jurisdictions subject to the cutoff. The measure could also affect local policing policies, sanctuary-style restrictions on law enforcement, and decisions about whether to accept federal assistance during emergencies or civil disorder.
Sentiment
There is limited recorded committee or floor discussion in the provided materials, and no vote history is available. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and accountability proposal aimed at jurisdictions perceived as limiting police intervention or cooperation. The overall tone of the bill is assertive and punitive toward local governments that restrict law enforcement authority.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth and subjectivity of the term “lawless jurisdiction,” the Attorney General’s discretion in making determinations, and the threat of withholding federal funds from entire jurisdictions. Supporters would likely argue the bill pressures local governments to maintain order and cooperate with law enforcement during violent unrest. Opponents would likely argue it could punish local policy choices, intrude on state and local control of policing, and create uncertainty by tying major federal funding streams to a broad federal designation.