How monument protection affects your agency’s DOJ grant eligibility

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Looking to navigate the complexities of grants funding? Lexipol is your go-to resource for state-specific, fully developed grants services that can help fund your needs. Find out more about our grants services here.

In 2020, the aftermath of George Floyd’s death saw a surge in monument vandalism across the United States, with more than 160 statues and memorials defaced or destroyed. Rather than restoring or protecting these symbols, many governments opted to remove monuments altogether, often in response to public pressure and unrest.

In June 2020, President Trump signed Executive Order 13933 in response to the widespread vandalism. The order stated that many state and local governments “appear[ed] to have lost the ability to distinguish between the lawful exercise of rights to free speech and assembly and unvarnished vandalism.” This directive emphasized the federal government’s intent to protect monuments, memorials and statues during the protests. However, in May 2021, President Biden revoked EO 13933, shifting responsibility back to state and local authorities and allowing for the removal of federal monuments rather than requiring their preservation.

The landscape shifted once again on January 29, 2025, when President Trump reinstated EO 13933, but with a crucial new provision: a direct connection between monument protection and eligibility for federal grant funding. Agencies must now demonstrate efforts to maintain and defend public monuments to qualify for certain federal grants.

This article outlines what law enforcement leaders, command staff and grant coordinators need to know to align with EO 13933 requirements and secure federal grant funding.

Monument protection now tied to DOJ grant eligibility

EO 13933 authorizes the DOJ to penalize jurisdictions that do not enforce laws protecting monuments, memorials and statues. Recent DOJ grant solicitations, including those from the COPS Office, explicitly require agencies to certify their monument protection efforts as a condition of future grant funding. If the agency does not submit that documentation, the DOJ can now withhold or freeze awards to any jurisdiction that “failed to protect public monuments, memorials, or statutes from destruction or vandalism.”

For agencies dependent on DOJ grants for staffing, equipment and community programs, non-compliance could mean the loss of essential resources.

What agencies must do before applying for DOJ grants

To avoid funding delays or outright denials, police agencies should use the following best practices in reporting.

1. Update internal policies to address monument protection

Agencies should ensure their policies clearly reflect these practices to meet federal compliance standards:

• Formalize response protocols: Agencies must have clear, written procedures for responding to monument-related incidents, including vandalism, protests, or attempted destruction. These protocols should specify steps for initial response, evidence collection and follow-up investigation.
• Designate responsibility: In times of regional or local specific threats, departments should assign specific units, such as patrol divisions, specialized response teams, or interagency task forces, to monitor and protect high-risk monuments. Your agency must document these efforts in its policy.
• Align with federal expectations: Agencies’ policies must reflect the DOJ’s emphasis on robust enforcement and prosecution of monument vandalism, as outlined in EO 13933 and relevant federal statutes.

2. Maintain detailed documentation

The DOJ may require agencies to provide proof of proactive monument protection measures. Agencies should retain and carefully document the following:

• Patrol plans and logs: Document scheduled checks of monument sites, including frequency, duration and personnel involved. Record this information at both times of threats and times of peace.
• Incident response protocols: Keep records of officer training on monument-related incidents and protocols for handling vandalism or protests.
• Enforcement activity: Keep detailed logs of arrests, investigations and prosecutions related to monument damage, as well as the outcomes of those cases.
• Restoration efforts: Record coordination with local government or parks departments for monument maintenance or restoration, including before-and-after photographs and repair invoices.

3. Strengthen investigations of monument vandalism

If an incident of vandalism happens, the investigating agency must thoroughly document and investigate. Damage to property, collection and preservation of surveillance footage, proof of chain of custody for physical evidence, and interviews all need to be clearly articulated in a police report. Any interagency coordination should also be documented. Agencies should report and log the incident in a federal crime database like the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

Federal grant reviewers may also assess whether agencies have adequately trained personnel on monument-related enforcement and investigations. It may be best to document that all police officers in your agency understand the difference between lawful protest and criminal vandalism. This will ensure that enforcement actions respect constitutional rights while protecting public property. Training should also cover de-escalation tactics and the DOJ’s expectations under EO 13933. This training should be kept as supporting documentation for the grant.

4. Leverage surveillance and community reporting

Another new requirement is the articulation of leveraging technology or community reporting. If possible, install, upgrade, or expand surveillance cameras near high-profile or vulnerable monuments. In times of unrest, articulate what surveillance your agency added to augment their current surveillance system, e.g., camera trailers, real time crime centers, undercover units.

Many monuments and statues may be located in areas where they are unable to be surveilled by camera systems. In these cases, the agency should document how it has promoted public reporting, specifically by encouraging members to report suspicious activity through tip lines, online portals, or community outreach programs. Document any new or existing signage that encourages community reporting.

Final considerations for police leaders

Monument disputes often stir strong emotions and generate significant political controversy, making it essential for agencies to strike a careful balance between enforcement obligations, community relations, and compliance with federal law. Under the Department of Justice’s requirements outlined in EO 13933, agencies are expected to emphasize proactive planning rather than simply reacting to incidents after they occur.

Begin by conducting a thorough assessment to find which monuments in your area are most at risk for vandalism. Consider factors such as past incidents, location and current public sentiment. Use this information to develop comprehensive contingency plans and update your agency’s policies to include clear, rapid-response protocols for monument-related emergencies. This should involve the mobilization of specialized units and seamless coordination with local stakeholders.

Collaboration is also key. Engage proactively with historical societies, city councils and other community stakeholders to align your priorities and share the responsibility for preserving these important sites. Meticulously document all partnership efforts, as well as any updates or improvements to your monument protection strategies. Address any documentation gaps before submitting applications for COPS-related or other DOJ grants, ensuring your agency is fully prepared to prove compliance and secure essential federal funding.

TOP TIP: Start now and document everything. It is not enough to say your agency did something. Your agency may have to show proof. Keep all documentation in one place since you may need it for any federal grant programs.

Conclusion

With DOJ grants now explicitly tied to monument protection, law enforcement agencies cannot afford a passive approach. By implementing clear policies, keeping rigorous documentation and training officers appropriately, agencies can safeguard critical federal funding.