Two Republican senators have dropped a legislative bombshell aimed at dismantling cashless bail, a policy they argue turns justice into a revolving door for violent offenders.
According to Just the News, Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas have introduced twin bills to end this practice not just in Washington, D.C., but nationwide. Their goal is to keep dangerous criminals off the streets by tying federal funding to stricter bail requirements.
Nearly two weeks ago, President Donald Trump set the stage with executive orders targeting the same issue, pushing to eliminate cashless bail through administrative action. Now, Blackburn and Cornyn are working to cement those efforts into law with the Ending Cashless Bail in Our Nation’s Capital Act and the Keep Violent Criminals Off Our Streets Act.
Blackburn didn’t mince words, stating, “Cashless bail and other soft-on-crime policies have empowered violent criminals across our country, putting the lives of law-abiding citizens at risk.” Her point cuts to the heart of a system that seems more focused on emptying jails than protecting communities, often leaving victims to fend for themselves.
Cornyn piled on, calling cashless bail a “soft-on-crime policy that not only endangers innocent Americans, but also erodes trust in the justice system and drains law enforcement resources by forcing police to play a game of catch-and-release with repeat offenders.” When officers spend their days re-arresting the same culprits, it’s hard to argue that the current setup respects their time or the public’s safety.
Both senators see Washington, D.C., as a critical starting point, with Cornyn noting it should stand as a “shining city” of security. Their legislation demands that the district impose the highest cash bail levels for dangerous offenders awaiting trial.
The bills don’t just wag a finger; they wield a financial hammer by restricting federal funds to states and localities clinging to cashless bail policies. Specifically, the Keep Violent Criminals Off Our Streets Act would block Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants to non-compliant areas.
The Ending Cashless Bail in Our Nation’s Capital Act zeroes in on D.C., mandating cash bail for those charged with severe crimes like murder, rape, carjacking, and burglary while they await trial. This move aims to stop the district’s long-standing policy, in place since 1992, from serving as a model for leniency.
If enacted, the impact could ripple through states like California and Illinois, where similar measures have taken root. Forcing a rethink of bail practices in these areas might finally prioritize public safety over ideological experiments.
Supporters of cashless bail aren’t staying quiet, arguing that traditional cash bail unfairly burdens low-income individuals and minority communities. While their concern for equity carries weight, it sidesteps the reality of repeat offenders exploiting the system to harm again.
The data from places like D.C. shows a persistent problem: violent crime doesn’t pause for good intentions. Policies must balance compassion with accountability, not tilt so far toward one that the other collapses entirely.
With Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York poised to introduce matching bills in the House, the push against cashless bail is gaining steam. This isn’t just a D.C. issue; it’s a national reckoning on how we define justice.
The legislation from Blackburn and Cornyn offers a clear message: safety isn’t negotiable, even if the progressive agenda claims otherwise. Tying federal funds to stricter bail rules forces a hard choice on states more concerned with optics than outcomes.
Trump’s earlier executive orders laid the groundwork, but laws carry weight that directives can’t match. If passed, these bills could shift the tide against policies that too often leave communities vulnerable while criminals walk free.
This fight over cashless bail isn’t about punishing the poor; it’s about ensuring the system doesn’t punish the innocent with preventable crime. As this debate unfolds, the question remains whether lawmakers will choose protection over platitudes.
