Trump Redirects CVI Dollars To Cops, Courts, And Prisons That Work

President Trump’s administration recently axed $811 million in federal grants for Community Violence Intervention (CVI) programs, prompting outcry from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, GIFFORDS, and state lawmakers like Assemblymember Mike Gipson. They argue these cuts threaten lives by defunding efforts to curb gun violence. But this decision deserves applause. It redirects taxpayer dollars from speculative social experiments to the bedrock of public safety: well-funded police, prosecutors, and prisons. Americans want results, not rhetoric.

CVI advocates, including Bonta, paint these programs as vital to breaking cycles of violence. They cite successes like Baltimore’s Safe Streets, which reduced homicides by 56 percent in some areas. Yet the broader evidence is less convincing. Systematic reviews show only a modest 1.19 odds ratio for violence reduction across CVI initiatives. With police departments understaffed and courts backlogged, why pour hundreds of millions into programs with inconsistent outcomes? Taxpayers deserve better.

Under U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of Justice has taken a stand for fiscal responsibility. By cutting funds that propped up unproven initiatives, the administration prioritizes measurable deterrence—more officers patrolling streets, faster prosecutions, and tougher sentences. These are the tools that keep communities secure. Why gamble on untested theories when proven methods exist?

The loss of federal grants hit California hard. Organizations like Fresno’s Advance Peace and Oakland’s Youth ALIVE! saw $2 million each in funding vanish, forcing staff cuts and scaled-back services. Bonta calls this a crisis, but it’s an opportunity. For decades, conservative thinkers have argued that states and local governments, not Washington, should tackle local challenges. This principle, rooted in the 1950s push for limited federal power, applies perfectly to CVI.

When federal funds dry up, communities must innovate. If Fresno’s Advance Peace, once praised by the city’s former police commissioner, truly saves lives, why can’t California’s budget or private donors sustain it? The state’s reliance on $145 million in direct intervention grants reveals a deeper problem: federal overreach breeds dependency. Cities like Oakland, where gun violence persists despite CVI efforts, need local solutions, not more Washington handouts.

Bonta and his allies claim these cuts erase years of progress, pointing to programs that mentor at-risk youth or support gunshot victims. But with national gun homicides down 14 percent by 2023, the impact of CVI remains unclear. If these programs were as effective as advertised, wouldn’t cities see sharper declines? Trump’s cuts force California to take ownership of its public safety challenges, fostering accountability and ingenuity.

Supporters of CVI, including state Senator Jesse Arreguín, argue that federal investment addresses root causes like poverty and despair. They praise Biden’s $1.5 billion CVI budget proposal and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as bold steps forward. But history shows that massive federal spending rarely solves complex social problems. The Great Society programs of the 1960s promised to end poverty and crime but left many communities struggling. Today’s CVI push risks the same fate.

Recent federal budget cuts, including $12 billion from CDC and SAMHSA grants, have sparked similar complaints. Nonprofits and states lament job losses and service reductions, but these cuts expose a flawed system. Overreliance on federal grants leaves communities vulnerable when funding ends. CVI’s backers want more federal dollars, ignoring the $1.1 trillion in projected Medicaid and SNAP reductions over a decade. Conservatives have long cautioned against this cycle of dependency, advocating for fiscal discipline instead.

The argument for CVI also overlooks a critical truth: law enforcement drives results. In 2023, cities like New York and Chicago saw gun homicide drops of 18 to 26 percent, thanks to aggressive policing and prosecution. CVI advocates claim each dollar invested saves up to forty-one dollars in medical and legal costs, but those estimates rely on ideal conditions rarely seen in practice. Why divert resources from proven strategies to fund programs with uncertain returns?

The Trump administration’s decision to cut $169 million in community safety grants and $8.6 million in CVI research isn’t cruel—it’s pragmatic. Taxpayers deserve programs that deliver clear results, not endless pilots. If models like Chicago’s READI, which reduced shootings by 79 percent among participants, are effective, states and private organizations can fund them without federal oversight. This approach respects local priorities and keeps budgets in check.

California’s reaction, led by Bonta and GIFFORDS, misses the mark. At Bonta’s own gun violence roundtables, CVI leaders demanded stable funding. But true stability comes from local investment, not federal grants that vanish with political shifts. Cities like Fresno and Los Angeles must build resilient solutions, not wait for Washington to save them. Doesn’t it make sense to trust communities to solve their own problems?

With gun deaths falling to 46,278 in 2023 from 48,830 in 2021, enforcement deserves the credit. From the 1994 Crime Bill’s policing grants to today’s focus on prosecutorial power, conservatives have championed strategies that work: more cops, stronger courts, and real consequences. Trump’s CVI cuts align with this vision, rejecting the idea that federal dollars can fix every issue. Let’s invest in law and order—the foundation of safe communities.