The Trump administration's decision to cut over $800 million in grants for community violence intervention programs could lead to an increase in violent crime, experts warn. Despite a significant drop in homicides nationwide since the pandemic peak, advocates fear that slashing these programs will reverse progress.
Funding Cuts Amid Falling Crime
In April 2025, the Department of Justice eliminated more than $800 million in grants from its Office of Justice Programs, which were aimed at preventing and responding to gun violence. The Justice Department justified the cuts by stating it was focusing on "prosecuting criminals," but many experts argue that intervention programs are more effective at reducing violence than arrests alone.
Shani Buggs, an assistant professor at the University of California, Davis, who studies community violence prevention, expressed dismay: "We saw historic reductions in homicides, meaning countless fewer families buried loved ones. It is disheartening that instead of investing in what worked, we are doing the opposite."
Crime Trends During and After the Pandemic
In 2020, the U.S. murder rate surged 30% over 2019, the largest increase ever recorded, according to the FBI. Experts attribute this to COVID-19 lockdowns, which pushed young men in high-poverty neighborhoods out of work and school. Violent crime began to ease during the second half of the Biden administration and continued declining under Trump. In 2025, homicides were 25% lower than in 2019, per the Council on Criminal Justice. New York City also reported its fewest murders on record in early 2025.
The Trump administration has taken credit for the decline, linking it to national guard deployments and a tough-on-crime approach. However, experts note that crime dropped significantly in cities without such deployments, like Baltimore, Buffalo, and Salt Lake City, where homicides fell over 40% compared to 2019.
Impact of Federal Grants on Violence Prevention
In 2022, the Biden administration's Safer Communities Act provided $250 million for community-based violence intervention. Grants supported organizations like Baltimore's LifeBridge Health, which used community members to mediate conflicts, and the Urban Peace Institute in Los Angeles, which trained violence interrupters. The Trump administration terminated these grants, despite Baltimore achieving the largest homicide rate decrease among 35 cities studied.
Buggs noted that Baltimore's success demonstrates "what happens when you pour resources into a comprehensive public safety approach." However, experts caution that it is difficult to pinpoint why violent crime has dropped so sharply. Factors may include increased investment in intervention programs, infrastructure improvements like street lighting, and the waning impact of COVID-19.
Concerns About Waste and Fraud
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the cuts eliminated "millions of dollars in wasteful grants." However, the extent of waste or fraud among grantees is unclear. In Minneapolis, a lawsuit challenged how the city awarded funding to violence prevention organizations. Unlike the national trend, Minneapolis saw a 30% increase in homicides in 2025 compared to 2019. The city settled and agreed to require detailed service proposals from applicants.
Separately, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued We Push for Peace, a nonprofit accused of siphoning over $6.5 million for personal expenses, including a Las Vegas trip and funding for a liquor store. A worker from the organization was also filmed beating a homeless man in 2021.
Success Stories Despite Controversies
Despite these issues, many violence intervention programs have succeeded. In San Francisco, a 2020 initiative providing intensive mentorship to high-risk individuals led to a 50% reduction in homicides and non-fatal shootings in the targeted district, according to a University of Pennsylvania report.
Buggs rejected the administration's waste argument, stating, "There was no investigation of waste, fraud, and abuse before the cuts. When preventing violence, the government should ensure it is not doing harm first."
