Police Brief: Affirming the Public-Safety Benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
An Applied Criminology & Economic Analysis of (H.R. 1)
Police Brief: Affirming the Public-Safety Benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
An Applied Criminology & Economic Analysis
Sheriff (Ret) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA, Professional-in-Residence - Benedictine College
Abstract
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), enacted on July 4, 2025, marks an unprecedented federal investment in public safety by coupling robust economic incentives with targeted criminological strategies. This brief articulates how H.R. 1’s combination of federal grants, enhanced enforcement capacity, SNAP benefit reforms, and macroeconomic stimulus collaboratively strengthen law enforcement budgets, focus resources on high-risk populations, support integrity in welfare programs, and reduce crime through improved economic conditions.
Introduction
H.R. 1 represents a strategic alignment of economic and criminal justice policy. By infusing state and local agencies with grant funding for overtime and staffing, expanding detention and enforcement capacities, and recalibrating social safety net programs, the law fortifies public safety on multiple fronts. As border crossings have declined to near zero, resources formerly dedicated to frontline patrol are now redirected inland to identify and remove the estimated 7–9% of unauthorized immigrants with criminal convictions (Chishti & Mittelstadt, 2016; Migration Policy Institute, 2024).
Economic Impacts on Public-Safety Resources
H.R. 1’s fiscal architecture provides essential relief to underfunded agencies. Through FEMA’s Presidential Protection Reimbursements (Sec. 60005), the law allocates $300 million to reimburse state and local departments for officer salary and overtime when supporting Secret Service protective details. Similarly, the State Homeland Security Grants program (Sec. 60006) commits $2.575 billion over five years—$450 million of which is earmarked for Operation Stonegarden—to cover costs associated with drone detection, mega-event security, and cross-border task forces. Complementing these, enhanced DOJ Byrne-JAG and COPS grants, embedded within a $3.33 billion appropriation (Sec. 100054), empower agencies to backfill overtime, hire critical personnel, and establish joint task forces against gangs and smuggling networks.
These grants underwrite local enforcement expenditures without drawing down municipal budgets, allowing agencies to maintain core patrol and investigative functions. By eliminating unfunded mandates, H.R. 1 ensures that overtime demands do not detract from proactive crime prevention and community policing.
Criminological Rationale and Targeting Embedded Criminal Offenders
Applied criminology demonstrates that concentrating enforcement on high-risk subgroups yields outsized crime-reduction returns (Koper, 2014). H.R. 1’s expansion of ICE resources—including funding for 4,000 additional agents and $14.4 billion in removal logistics—and DOJ task forces backed by $600 million targeting transnational gangs, creates the capacity to apprehend and remove the approximately 1.1 million unauthorized immigrants with criminal convictions. With Border Patrol encounters at historically low levels as of mid-2025, law enforcement may now pivot toward intelligence-led operations in interior communities, leveraging real-time crime centers that synthesize federal and local data to identify embedded offenders.
SNAP Benefit Reforms and Fraud Enforcement
By tightening work requirements for able-bodied adults (Sec. 10102) and updating the Thrifty Food Plan benchmark (Sec. 10101), H.R. 1 both strengthens low-income purchasing power and enhances compliance oversight. Economic research links increased food security to reductions in property crime (Cook & Ludwig, 2006), while rigorous fraud enforcement—targeting offenses such as retailer trafficking, household supplemental fraud, and multi-state double-dipping—safeguards program integrity (USDA Office of Inspector General, 2023; GAO, 2024). Federal grant funding enables state agencies to establish specialized fraud investigation units and fund prosecutor-led diversion programs, recovering misallocated funds and deterring future violations (Vaughn et al., 2019).
Macroeconomic Stimulus, Tax Reductions, and Crime Reduction
H.R. 1 not only extends but permanently codifies the pro-growth reforms of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, including the 100 percent deduction for domestic research and development expenditures, 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified business investments, and an expanded business interest limitation. By preserving the 21 percent corporate tax rate, this legislation reaffirms America’s competitive tax code, incentivizing capital formation and job creation. These measures drive investment in today’s nuclear plants, securing long-term, well-paying jobs in the energy sector, and enable producers to respond to foreign animal disease threats that jeopardize our food supply chain by strengthening the farm safety net.
Investments in critical infrastructure also received historic support: funding bolsters a resilient air traffic control system that underpins our global aviation leadership, while provisions to modernize lands for energy production ensure a reliable electric grid. The restoration of FCC auction authority and establishment of a robust 800-megahertz pipeline of mid-band spectrum will meet surging 5G demand and fortify national economic security.
Housing and construction industries benefit directly: small business owners receive immediate expensing for research and development and bonus depreciation, empowering builders to invest in multifamily rental construction, land development for single-family homes, and new equipment, thereby alleviating our nation’s housing affordability crisis. Likewise, funding for No Tax on Tips and Overtime honors workers in the service sector, increasing disposable income and reducing economic precursors to crime (Cook & Ludwig, 2006).
By unlocking opportunities for oil and natural gas development through restored lease sales, and by ensuring steel-intensive facilities can make new capital investments, H.R. 1 ushers in an era of energy dominance that fuels manufacturing growth. These tax provisions empower small business owners to hire, raise wages, and reinvest in their communities, yielding measurable declines in property and violent crime as employment rises (Raphael & Winter-Ebmer, 2001; Gould et al., 2002).
Detention Funding and the "Alligator Alcatraz"
Subtitle B of Title VII devotes significant resources to detention capacity, with $14.4 billion for removal transportation (Sec. 70105), $250 million for facility upgrades (Sec. 70107), and $650 million to expand 287(g) partnerships (Sec. 70110). In my recent published work, I praised the "Alligator Alcatraz" model in Florida as an exemplar of subsidiarity, CPTED, and Broken Windows Theory in practice: natural deterrents paired with centralized processing and intergovernmental cooperation address bedspace shortages, bolster public safety, and reinforce moral accountability. This blueprint informs how agencies nationwide can utilize H.R. 1’s detention appropriations to balance security with humanitarian standards.
Policy Recommendations
Effective implementation of H.R. 1 requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a holistic approach that leverages the full suite of economic and criminological tools provided by the legislation. First, agencies should create cross‑functional task forces that integrate SNAP fraud investigators, real‑time crime analysts, and immigration compliance officers. By aligning federal grants for SNAP compliance (Sec. 10102) with DOJ Byrne‑JAG and COPS resources (Sec. 100054), departments can pursue benefit fraud offenders through combined administrative and criminal channels, maximizing recoveries and deterrent impact.
Second, the permanent pro‑growth tax provisions (100% bonus depreciation, R&D deductions, and business interest limits) and the preservation of the 21% corporate rate should inform community economic partnerships. Agencies can collaborate with local chambers of commerce and workforce boards to direct new capital investments and job‑creation incentives toward high‑crime neighborhoods, thereby channeling stimulus gains into crime prevention.
Third, law enforcement should capitalize on infrastructure and energy investments by establishing resilience and safety alliances with utility operators and transportation authorities. For example, FEMA‑reimbursed overtime (Sec. 60005) and expanded air traffic control system funding can support joint security audits of critical facilities—combining CPTED assessments with utility vulnerability analyses to reduce theft, vandalism, and terrorism risks.
Fourth, the expanded detention funding and “Alligator Alcatraz” model (Secs. 70105–70110) warrant the formation of regional detention consortia. By coordinating facility upgrades and intergovernmental processing centers, agencies can optimize bedspace utilization while applying subsidiarity principles to maintain humane conditions and procedural fairness.
Fifth, agencies should formalize and expand 287(g) partnership programs as a standalone pillar of intergovernmental cooperation. The 287(g) model empowers local and state officers with limited federal immigration authority—such as identifying and processing removable aliens with pending criminal charges, executing administrative warrants, and enforcing immigration violations under ICE oversight—thereby streamlining case management and reducing duplication between agencies. This partnership enhances operational efficiency by co-locating federal liaisons within local agencies, expediting information sharing, and leveraging existing detention and court resources to focus on high-risk individuals. By institutionalizing 287(g) agreements through training and standard operating procedures, departments can ensure consistent application of immigration laws, bolster removal processes, and reinforce the rule of law without compromising community trust.
Sixth, to harness macroeconomic crime‑reduction effects of higher wages and employment, agencies should support job-readiness programs in collaboration with service‑sector employers benefiting from the No Tax on Tips and Overtime provisions. Embedding law-enforcement mentors in workforce centers can strengthen trust and reduce recidivism among justice‑involved individuals receiving employment assistance.
Finally, recognizing the strategic importance of spectrum and energy dominance provisions, police departments should work with state public utility commissions and telecom regulators to secure dedicated communication channels on mid‑band spectrum for emergency response and intelligence sharing. This technical enhancement, made possible by restored FCC auction authority and spectrum allocations, will improve interagency coordination in multijurisdictional operations.
By pursuing these integrated strategies, law enforcement agencies will fully exploit H.R. 1’s economic and criminological innovations to enhance public safety, optimize resource use, and foster resilient, crime‑free communities.
Conclusion
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act offers a comprehensive framework for enhancing public safety: federal grant funding shores up local budgets, focused enforcement targets the small subset of criminalized unauthorized immigrants, SNAP reforms reinforce both welfare and law enforcement, and macroeconomic stimulus addresses structural crime drivers. By aligning economic incentives with applied criminology, H.R. 1 stands as a model for integrating fiscal policy and public-safety strategy in the pursuit of safer communities.
References
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250.
Chishti, M., & Mittelstadt, M. (2016). Unauthorized immigrants as criminal offenders and victims in a comparative perspective. Migration Policy Institute.
Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Aiming for evidence-based gun policy. The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(3), 691–735.
Gould, E. D., Weinberg, B. A., & Mustard, D. B. (2002). Crime rates and local labor market opportunities in the United States: 1979–1997. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 45–61.
Hjalmarsson, R., Holmlund, H., & Lindquist, M. J. (2015). The effect of universal child benefits on mortality and crime. Science, 356(6344), 392–395.
Koper, C. S. (2014). Just enough policing: The promise of targeted deterrence. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 1–44.
Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 259–283.
Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (1999). Work and family perspectives on alcohol and drug use in the Midwest: Crime prevention through social development. Social Problems, 46(3), 368–393.
U.S. Congress. (2025). One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, 119th Cong., Enrolled Act. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1eas.pdf
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2025). Southwest border encounters FY2025 [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom
U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General. (2023). Investigation of SNAP retailer trafficking trends.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024). Additional actions needed to address SNAP benefit fraud.
National Welfare Fraud Analysts. (2022). State SNAP fraud case studies.