SB 2366, the “Stop Anarchists From Endangering Cities Act” or “SAFE Cities Act,” would require the Attorney General to identify and publish a federal list of “anarchist jurisdictions.” The bill defines such jurisdictions as states or local governments that, in the Attorney General’s view, have refused to take reasonable steps to stop violence and property destruction. The Department of Justice would have to publish an initial list within 14 days of enactment and update it at least every 180 days.
In deciding whether a jurisdiction belongs on the list, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would consider whether the jurisdiction has policies that prevent police intervention during widespread violence, blocks policing of certain areas, has disempowered or defunded law enforcement, or unreasonably refuses federal law-enforcement assistance. The bill also directs OMB to issue guidance to federal agencies within 30 days on restricting or disfavoring listed jurisdictions to the maximum extent allowed by law in the award of federal grants.
The bill’s practical effect would be to create a federal designation that could be used to limit access to discretionary federal funding for certain states or local governments. It would not directly amend criminal law, but it would affect grant administration, federal agency discretion, and potentially the relationship between federal agencies and local governments that adopt policing or public-safety policies viewed as restrictive by the administration.
Based on the bill text and the limited procedural history, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and anti-crime proposal, with no recorded committee debate or votes yet. The language suggests support from lawmakers concerned about unrest, police defunding, and cooperation with federal law enforcement. At the same time, the bill’s broad and politically charged terminology is likely to draw criticism from opponents who may view it as targeting sanctuary jurisdictions, local policing policy, or municipal autonomy.
The main point of contention is the definition of “anarchist jurisdiction” and the discretion it gives federal officials to judge whether a state or locality has taken “reasonable steps” to stop violence. Critics are likely to argue that the criteria are vague, subjective, and could be used to penalize jurisdictions for policy choices such as limiting police intervention, reallocating police funding, or declining federal assistance. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill is necessary to encourage public order and ensure that federal funds do not support jurisdictions that fail to maintain safety.
The bill would direct the Department of Justice to create and maintain a public list of designated “anarchist jurisdictions” and would instruct OMB to guide federal agencies in restricting or disfavoring those jurisdictions in federal grant programs where agencies have lawful discretion. It would not itself create new criminal penalties, but it would affect federal grant eligibility and administrative decision-making for states and local governments identified under the bill’s criteria.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented legislative debate to measure. The bill’s framing indicates a law-and-order posture and likely support among proponents of tougher responses to unrest and police defunding, while the terminology and grant-penalty approach suggest likely opposition from those concerned about federal overreach, local control, and the breadth of the designation criteria.
The central controversy is whether the bill’s definition of an “anarchist jurisdiction” is too vague and politically loaded, and whether it gives federal officials excessive discretion to punish local policy choices. Opponents are likely to object to the inclusion of policies that limit police intervention, defund law enforcement, or decline federal assistance, arguing that these are legitimate local governance decisions. Supporters are likely to contend that jurisdictions failing to address violence and property destruction should not receive favorable treatment in federal grant programs.