Congress is on track to spend more than $1 billion on the budget for the U.S. Capitol Police for the first time in history, with even fiscal conservatives pushing for more member security investments in the wake of the Charlie Kirk killing.
Kirk’s assassination and a broader rise in high-profile political violence has activated lawmakers around a renewed push for additional protections for themselves and their families. It’s scrambling Capitol Hill’s typical ideological factions, with some GOP budget hawks accusing Republican leadership of penny-pinching.
“They can find that money just like that for the war pimps, but for us it’s a little different,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who has scolded Republicans for greenlighting Ukraine aid, said in an interview.
The debate over how much money lawmakers are willing to spend on their own safety will come to a head as appropriators rush to finalize the legislative branch spending bill for fiscal 2026, which funds the operations of Congress and member security.
That the Capitol Police budget could soon clear $1 billion is telling enough, a vivid reflection of just how frightened elected officials are amid the recent surge of deadly political violence. But for many members, this sum still won’t be enough.
Both chambers took steps in the days after the Kirk assassination to move existing money around to provide lawmakers with more options for security, with promises about exploring additional changes. The main push for swift action, however, has come from the House.
Burchett was among several GOP firebrands who, less than a day before a scheduled vote on a stopgap government funding bill last week, descended on Speaker Mike Johnson’s office to demand leadership reopen negotiations on the legislation to incorporate more member security money. The package was already slated to provide a $30 million infusion to fund partnerships between Capitol Police and state and local law enforcement agencies.
He, alongside Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, ultimately backed off their threats to vote against the stopgap measure amid promises leadership would make additional investments in the coming months, including in a standalone member security supplemental.
Some of them were advocating for every House member to be able to obtain round-the-clock security details, which are currently reserved for party leaders and lawmakers deemed to be under imminent threat. Expanding them widely is potentially a multibillion-dollar undertaking.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, the lone Democrat in Johnson’s office for the recent member security talks, wants each lawmaker to have a staffer tasked with protective security duties.
Another deficit hawk, Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), has spent more than $150,000 from his own wallet to secure his home. He isn’t blanching at investing even more federal dollars for member security, for lawmakers as well as staff. “This is about more than the vanity-filled members of Congress,” he said.
Schweikert also said he’s still reeling from being confronted in a Costco parking lot by a constituent who claimed to be irate that his granddaughter didn’t win a prize in the annual congressional art competition. He was with his two young children at the time and describes them as still being traumatized by the event.
The need for enhanced security is obvious. But, he added, “I think the more interesting question is, what’s effective?”
That very question is consuming the lead negotiators in member security funding talks, who are weighing ambitious proposals from the rank-and-file against a hesitation to throw more money at a problem that might not be so easily fixed.
“There’s a lot of members asking a lot of things,” Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds the legislative branch, said in an interview. “We’re running the numbers and providing the data to those who are going to be making those decisions.”
The Capitol Police now operates on a $806.5 million budget, which is already up more than 73 percent since 2020.
Valadao said it would be up to members of leadership to determine what dollar amount would constitute “that sweet spot” where “members feel safe.” Asked if he had any idea what that magic number might look like, he could only shrug.
Johnson said in a recent interview that leaders were considering making as much as $25,000 per month available as part of the legislative branch bill that would allow select members to have extra protection “on a case by case basis” if they are deemed to be under “serious threat.”
He didn’t elaborate, however, on who would get to decide which members are under the greatest threat, and using what criteria.
Meanwhile, Reps. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) — the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, respectively — are working outside of the government funding process to shift around existing resources for member security, underscoring there are programs right now that aren’t being fully utilized.
“What we have done is actually provided a lot of communication to members. Every office has a law enforcement coordinator in their office. We’re providing that information to those offices,” said Steil.
“As these concerns have become heightened, I think a lot more members have been more proactive in making sure that they understand the programs that are already available,” he continued, “as well as the expansion and extension.”
Morelle warned that protecting members against every single violent scenario is likely impossible when many perpetrators “are people who have deep, deep issues.”
“The challenge at the moment is, that there are a lot of things you can’t control, and you certainly can’t anticipate things that, in many ways, are random,” he added.
The reality is, myriad programs are already in place to support lawmakers when they’re away from the uber-secure Capitol complex. Members can, for instance, use their office funds for some security equipment, like cameras for district offices and a ballistic vest.
There’s a discussion about making changes to existing policies governing the use of a $20,000 lifetime cap lawmakers can use to install security systems at their private homes.
Some members want to be able to direct those funds toward making so-called capital improvements at their personal homes, such as perimeter fencing or bulletproof windows. That’s not currently allowed with lawmakers traditionally wary of using taxpayer dollars on construction projects that would increase the value of lawmakers’ residences.
Lawmakers are also permitted to use campaign funds to support security investments during political activities like rallies, including hiring personal security guards. But some members have complained about the suggestion they should be fundraising for their own protection.
“At some point they just build a consensus and let’s go with something,” Burchett suggested to party leaders. “Put it on the floor. Let’s debate it.”
Read the full article here