Taking Steps To End Cashless Bail To Protect Americans

The order directs the Attorney General to compile, within 30 days, a list of states and localities that have substantially eliminated cash bail as a pretrial release condition for crimes posing a public safety threat — including violent, sexual, or indecent offenses and property crimes like burglary, looting, or vandalism. The AG must update the list as circumstances change. It also directs the heads of all executive departments and agencies, coordinating with the Director of OMB, to identify federal funds — including grants and contracts — currently flowing to those jurisdictions that may be suspended or terminated.

The order does not itself suspend or cut any funding; the identification and any subsequent action are subject to applicable law and appropriations availability. The order also includes a standard non-rights-creating clause, making clear it cannot be used as a basis for a legal claim against the federal government.

State and local governments that have adopted cashless bail or substantially eliminated cash bail requirements for serious crimes. Federal grant and contract recipients operating in those jurisdictions may also be exposed if agency heads identify their funding as eligible for suspension or termination.

Jurisdictions with bail-reform policies face potential loss of federal grants and contracts across all agency programs, which could affect public services — from law enforcement assistance to housing and transportation — in communities where those policies are in effect. The scope of impact depends on future agency decisions about which funds to pull.

The process runs in two sequential phases. First, the Attorney General builds and maintains the target list within 30 days, routed through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. Second, every agency head — coordinating with OMB — audits current funding streams to listed jurisdictions and flags what could be suspended or terminated under existing law. Neither phase itself cuts funding; actual suspension or termination is a subsequent discretionary step constrained by applicable law and available appropriations, leaving the practical enforcement teeth dependent on future agency action.