The Trump administration is putting a new price tag on public safety, and cities that want a piece of the $300 million offer may have to accept far more than a boost to their police budgets.
The Justice Department is set to announce up to four finalist cities next month for its new “Model Cities” policing initiative, according to The Guardian. The program promises federal funding for police hiring, training, facilities, substance abuse recovery, and prisoner reentry programs. However, cities seeking a share of the funding will also have to accept a broader federal vision of public safety —one that could have serious consequences for communities of color.
Under the program, participating cities would be required to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and adopt policies targeting urban camping, loitering, squatting and illicit drug use. The guidelines also move away from a traditional “housing first” approach for people experiencing homelessness, requiring treatment compliance in some circumstances.
“This administration is leveraging every authority to ensure the safety of all Americans,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “The Model Cities Initiative will supercharge our law enforcement partners and restore the rule of law to America’s neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Our message is clear: We will help those who help us Make America Safe Again.”
RELATED: Chocolate City Under Trump: A Fight for Identity, Power and Place in DC
A widespread rollout of the initiative could mean that issues involving homelessness, addiction, mental illness and immigration would increasingly become matters for police intervention. And history tells us that when governments expand the footprint of policing, the consequences aren’t distributed equally.
Black Americans have long experienced disproportionate police stops, searches, arrests and use of force, according to the Sentencing Project. Expanding enforcement into public spaces and homelessness policy raises an obvious question: Who will be most likely to feel the increased presence of police?
The administration presented the initiative as a way to fight violent crime. But cities are being asked to accept policies that extend far beyond violent crime itself.
There’s another catch: recipients could potentially be required to repay federal costs associated with future law-enforcement assistance following a surge in violent crime or “civil unrest.”
Some cities are already reluctant. Montgomery, Alabama, reportedly declined to apply, saying that the grant doesn’t do much to address the socioeconomic and environmental factors. “That’s not a model I’d be looking for,” said Mayor Steven Reed. “Everybody wants a quick fix, and no one wants to invest in the root cause of the issue.”
Officials and residents in other cities have also raised concerns about the conditions attached to the money.
Cities need resources to address violence. Residents deserve safe neighborhoods, effective emergency services and meaningful investments in communities. However, many question whether public safety in the Trump era means more police, more enforcement and more punishment.
As the September application deadline approaches, communities are evaluating whether to sign away local control over what safety is supposed to mean. Although $300 million sounds like a lot of money, the question is what communities will have to pay for it.
