A stark divide is emerging in Congress over how to bolster law enforcement, with two competing bills reflecting fundamentally different approaches to public safety. While one proposal seeks to empower local authorities with federal resources to combat organized crime, the other aims to restrict collaboration between federal and local agencies on immigration enforcement.
Representative Pat Harrigan has introduced the COPS Anti-Organized Crime and Cartel Enforcement Act of 2025, a plan to funnel $200 million over four years through the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office. The intent is to create specialized units equipped to dismantle criminal operations, providing crucial training, equipment, and personnel.
This bill envisions a significant expansion of what COPS funding can be used for, potentially including drones, ballistic vests, helmets, and even tactical vehicles – mirroring provisions from a previous executive order. A key component involves repurposing $1.4 billion in COVID-19-era unemployment funding to finance these initiatives, reflecting a shift in priorities towards addressing immediate security concerns.
Harrigan argues that drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations are operating with alarming impunity within the United States, necessitating a robust response from local law enforcement. He emphasizes the urgent need to provide police with the “tools to do it,” particularly as these groups are linked to the influx of fentanyl and escalating violence in communities nationwide.
However, Democrats, led by Representative Mike Quigley, are raising serious concerns about the potential consequences of increased federal-local collaboration on immigration enforcement. Their proposed PROTECT Act seeks to prevent federal agencies from deputizing local authorities to carry out immigration-related duties.
Quigley’s central argument revolves around the erosion of public trust. He contends that when communities fear involvement with law enforcement could lead to deportation, they become less likely to report crimes or seek help, ultimately jeopardizing public safety. Stories from domestic violence advocates and reports of declining 9-1-1 calls in Latino communities underscore this concern.
The PROTECT Act specifically targets the 287(g) provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows federal agencies to delegate immigration enforcement authority to local police. Quigley believes this program is particularly problematic because it blurs the lines between local law enforcement and ICE, fostering distrust and hindering effective crime reporting.
As lawmakers prepare for a break, the future of these competing bills remains uncertain. The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement over the best path forward – whether to empower local agencies with broader authority and resources, or to prioritize building trust and safeguarding civil liberties within communities.
The core of the conflict lies in differing visions of what constitutes effective law enforcement and how to balance security concerns with the need to maintain strong relationships between police and the communities they serve.
