When law enforcement takes on immigration, our safety is the cost | Opinion

President Donald Trump recently signed a $70 billion immigration funding bill. While the massive increase in federal immigration spending sparked widespread debate, many agency budgets look surprisingly stable. One example? Department of Justice grants supporting crime reduction and victim services ‒ which I oversaw during the Biden administration ‒ fell by just 1% from 2025 levels.

But beneath the topline numbers are two important shifts: Congress is dispensing a record share of justice dollars through earmarks, and the administration is using federal money and incentives to push state and local agencies more deeply into immigration enforcement.

This is more than a budget story; it's a public safety story. The question is not whether immigration laws should be enforced, but whether federal dollars are now driving police, sheriffs, prosecutors and other justice agencies toward a mission that could pull them away from their core responsibilities: preventing crime, solving serious cases, protecting victims and maintaining public trust.

What a new Council on Criminal Justice analysis found

Let's begin with earmarks.

Earmarks allow members of Congress to secure funding for projects in their districts. Because these projects are written directly into the annual budget, earmark recipients bypass the standard competitive application process to receive their grants. That means less oversight and transparency ‒ and it makes earmarks controversial.

A new Council on Criminal Justice analysis finds that lawmakers allotted nearly $1 billion in Justice Department funding to specific local projects in fiscal 2026, a record high and a 57% increase over its recent peak.

Much of it was for law enforcement equipment such as patrol cars, radios and cameras, and many of these projects may be worthwhile. But because they escape the scrutiny given traditional grants, these earmarks might not reflect the issues, organizations or jurisdictions with the greatest public safety need.

And if there's one thing both Democratic and Republican administrations can agree on, it's that earmarks are a flawed, backroom way to allocate federal funding. Yet they have returned in force, quietly reshaping justice priorities with limited public scrutiny.

Expanded partnerships with Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The second shift is even more consequential. Through grant conditions, reimbursement funds and expanded partnerships with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington is creating powerful incentives for state and local agencies to devote more time, personnel and money to federal immigration priorities.

Presidents of both parties use federal budgets to advance their agendas. What's different here is the scale and direction of the shift, and the use of traditional justice grants to advance these aims.

Public safety capacity at every level of government is being redirected toward immigration work and away from some of the strategies most directly tied to preventing crime.

For example, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a "Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide (BIDEN) Fund." This grant opportunity just went live June 15, and about $3 billion will soon fund state and local jurisdictions to locate, apprehend, prosecute and detain immigrants.

It pays for hiring, technology and detention construction, reminiscent of the 1994 crime bill that incentivized prison building through grants to states.

The same broader push is visible in the rapid expansion of ICE's 287(g) program, which now has more than 2,000 signed agreements ‒ up from 135 at the start of Trump's second term ‒ to pay state and local agencies and deputize their officers to carry out federal immigration functions.

Some estimates suggest that up to $2 billion in federal dollars could pour into local budgets just in 2026, paying for equipment, salaries and even performance incentives tied to immigration enforcement outcomes.

This is not just an increase in resources. It's a distortion of mission.

Local law enforcement already faces a demanding public safety agenda: reducing shootings, solving cases, responding to disorder and sustaining cooperation from residents who may be reluctant to report crimes or serve as witnesses.

Now those same agencies are being asked, pressured or paid to shift attention toward immigration. Given that Congress has approved funding for enforcement, detention and deportation at unprecedented levels through the end of Trump's term, the actions underway today could be just the tip of the iceberg.

The Trump administration argues that this approach improves safety by removing dangerous people from the country ‒ and some of those arrested by ICE have serious criminal histories. But data shows that the immigration push is not focused on the most serious threats.

Less than 14% of the of nearly 400,000 arrested by ICE in 2025 had been convicted of or charged with violent crimes, according to internal documents obtained by CBS News, while nearly 40% had no criminal record.

There is another cost. When immigrant residents fear that contact with local police could lead to detention or deportation, some will avoid reporting crimes, cooperating as witnesses or calling for help. The impact of their hesitation does not fall on immigrant communities alone. It affects all of us by weakening the flow of information police need to solve crimes, prevent retaliation and protect victims.

None of this means immigration enforcement has no place in public safety. But the most impactful and cost-effective crime-reduction strategies are the ones that are more precise:

• Focusing on the people and places that account for high rates of serious violence.
• Targeting illegal gun trafficking.
• Providing services that can interrupt cycles of reoffending.
• Boosting victim services and community partnerships that help police and prosecutors do their jobs.

Budgets reflect our values and priorities, and they do more than spend money. They shape behavior.

When federal dollars tell state and local agencies that immigration enforcement is the overriding public safety priority, agencies will respond. The risk is that a politically popular enforcement agenda will crowd out the targeted work most likely to keep neighborhoods safe.

Amy L. Solomon is a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. She previously served as an assistant attorney general in the Biden administration's Department of Justice overseeing federal grantmaking and the science offices.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: When law enforcement takes on immigration, our safety is the cost | Opinion

Reporting by Amy L. Solomon, Opinion contributor / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published July 7, 2026 at 6:02 AM.