Who wants to defund police
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Calls to “defund the police” come from a mix of grassroots activists, civil‑rights organizations, some progressive elected officials and policy researchers who argue reallocating portions of policing budgets to social services will reduce harm (see proponents including grassroots groups and ACLU advocacy) [1] [2]. Opposition spans police unions, conservative commentators and some local officials who say cuts harmed public safety and public opinion shifted away from the slogan after 2020 [3] [4] [5].
1. Who uses the slogan and why: activists and abolitionists
The phrase “defund the police” originated in activism dating back at least to the Ferguson protests and surged after George Floyd’s murder; advocates—ranging from Black‑led grassroots groups to national civil‑liberties organizations—describe the goal as reducing police budgets and investing in housing, mental‑health care, education and other community services to address root causes of crime [2] [1].
2. Which elected officials have endorsed or echoed it
A minority of progressive members of Congress — frequently identified as the so‑called “Squad,” including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib — publicly supported versions of defunding or radical re‑thinking of policing; some local officials entertained cuts or alternatives in 2020–21 [6] [2]. Reporting also shows individual progressive candidates have at times scrubbed prior posts due to political fallout (example: Abdul El‑Sayed’s deleted tweets) [7].
3. What advocates actually mean — a spectrum, not a single policy
Supporters describe a spectrum from modest reallocation of specific police functions to full abolition; some proposals seek targeted “refund” strategies that move money to schools, housing and crisis response rather than zeroing out policing altogether [2] [8]. RAND researchers note even many law‑enforcement leaders would back narrowing police duties if communities asked police to solve fewer social problems [8].
4. Who opposes “defund” and why: unions, commentators, and some politicians
Police unions, conservative outlets and pro‑police advocacy groups argue defunding damaged morale, increased crime and was politically disastrous; commentators and some industry pieces assert the movement “devastated public safety” and helped shift public sentiment toward pro‑police policies [3] [4] [9].
5. Public opinion and electoral impact: mixed and changing
Polls cited in reference materials show “defund” was unpopular with broad swaths of voters in 2020–21 and that support declined over time; analysts and partisan outlets interpret election returns differently—some say elections repudiated the movement, while others focus on persistent calls for reform even as the slogan lost traction [5] [10] [9].
6. What actually happened to budgets — uneven local outcomes
Academic and journalism accounts show most police agencies increased or maintained budgets even after the slogan’s rise; some cities redirected funds to alternative services while many municipal institutions preserved or expanded policing budgets, reflecting local politics and institutional incentives to keep spending high [11] [12].
7. Evidence and contested claims about crime and safety
Scholarship and policy pieces caution against simple causal claims: some research links budget cuts in certain cities to public‑safety challenges, while other analysts argue non‑policing responses could reduce harm and that police are overtasked with social problems better handled by other services [12] [8]. Both pro‑ and anti‑defund sources use crime data selectively; comprehensive causal attribution is disputed in the literature [12] [8].
8. Hidden incentives and political framing to watch
Political actors on both sides use the phrase as a wedge. Republicans and pro‑police groups framed “defund” as radical and electorally damaging; some defenders of reform say opponents deliberately conflated modest budget reallocation with abolition to stifle change [13] [2]. Institutional incentives at the local level—relationships with unions, re‑election pressures and budgetary politics—often determine policy more than slogans alone [12].
9. Bottom line for readers: assess claim, policy, not slogan
“Defund the police” is a broad label covering multiple proposals: some seek incremental shifts of functions and funding, others call for systemic abolition. Evaluate specific proposals (how much money, which programs, oversight mechanisms) and local evidence rather than the slogan; available reporting shows both advocates (ACLU, grassroots groups) and skeptics (police unions, conservative outlets) present strong but competing interpretations of outcomes and risks [1] [3] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies on the supplied sources and does not claim to exhaust all reporting or data about local budget changes or the latest polls; available sources provided here are the basis for every factual assertion [2] [1] [6] [3] [12].