Key points:
- President Trump signs executive orders to end cashless bail.
- Reform advocates condemn orders as fearmongering and misinformation.
- Trump’s orders may face constitutional challenges due to federal overreach.
WASHINGTON, DC — President Trump’s decision to sign two sweeping executive orders aimed at ending cashless bail across the country has been met with strong condemnation from reform advocates, who say the policy is rooted in fearmongering, misinformation, and a dangerous return to wealth-based incarceration.
On August 25, Trump signed one executive order targeting Washington, D.C., and another broader order applying to states that have eliminated or reduced money bail. The orders threaten to withhold federal funding from jurisdictions that, in the administration’s view, have “substantially eliminated cash bail” for crimes it deems threats to public safety or order.
Claudine Constant, policy director at the Vera Institute of Justice, called the orders part of an ongoing campaign to undermine reforms that have improved both fairness and safety. “Safe [sic[ and cities that have eliminated or reduced the use of money bail, protected public safety, right, while also improving due process and fundamental fairness through the pretrial system,” she said. She emphasized that “there is essentially no correlation between bail reform and the rise in crime rates.”
Constant pointed to data from multiple jurisdictions that have already moved away from cash bail.
“Illinois, which is the only state that has fully eliminated cash bail, violent crime is down, and court appearance rates are up by 2%. In New York, which eliminated money bail for many misdemeanors and lower level felonies in 2019, the statewide jail population has fallen by more than 30%. In Jersey where bail reform became law in 2017, the state observed steeper decreases in violent crime than the national average. In DC, 89% of people were not rearrested in pretrial. So just based off of those studies done across these, I think we can safely say that there is no correlation between the rise in crime and bail reform.”
Those numbers mirror the official statement released by Vera.
Insha Rahman, the group’s vice president of advocacy and partnerships, said, “Public safety, not wealth, should determine who is released and who remains in jail pending trial. This decision by the administration is yet another distraction from the very measures Trump has taken that jeopardize the safety of our communities. Cash bail privileges the wealthy and penalizes those who cannot pay the price of their freedom. It is a giveaway to the private, for-profit bail bond industry that turns a profit of billions each year.”
The White House has framed the executive orders as a public safety measure, but Constant rejected that premise. “Limiting or completely eliminating the use of money bail does not mean exactly what you’re speaking to,” she said, explaining that release is almost always tied to conditions such as supervision, case management, or court reminders. “It is essentially creating, again, addressing making sure that public safety isn’t based on wealth and is actually based on public safety.”
Constant also criticized efforts by prosecutors to amplify crime fears linked to bail reform, pointing to a recent article in the New York Post highlighting Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s “zero bail” study.
“Again, I think the zero bail study is suspicious. Some of the rhetoric about promoting, and I think some of the statistics that have the research that has been done using real data… demonstrate again, that rising crime, if anything, crime has remained the same or has dropped in specific localities.”
She underscored the absurdity of equating cash bail with safety. “Public safety, determining whether or not a person is actually a risk to a public safety, if they’re a flight risk, how violent the crime is, and not wealth should determine who is released and who remains in jail pending trial.”
The executive orders, she argued, represent not only a setback for bail reform but also a political weapon aimed at deflecting from Trump’s broader cuts to public safety programs.
“We take control of the narrative. We continue to fight back, we continue to promote facts and statistics that are based off of real numbers and real prophecies that are existing in jurisdictions and localities. We continue to amplify the people who are entrenched in the work and have, again, the facts and figures to back up what we’re saying.”
For Constant, public safety cannot be reduced to incarceration alone.
“Communities want and deserve jobs and access to food and access to housing and all of these core tenets that ensure that people are able to live their happiest and healthiest life,” she said. “And what we’re seeing right now are the attacks that President Trump is taking right now is actually taking away from these core tenets of what it means to be safe and redirecting the narrative to something that has nothing to do with that”.
The Vera Institute has warned that the administration’s approach undermines proven strategies for reducing crime.
Rahman noted in Vera’s statement that “states and cities that have eliminated or reduced the use of money bail have taken money and profit out of the system while protecting public safety. Study after study after study confirms this.”
Constant also pointed to the administration’s budget cuts as proof that its rhetoric on safety is hollow.
“What we’ve seen so far is that he’s cut 820 million in DOJ grants that help drive down crime, including exactly what you’re talking about, programs like gun violence prevention and services for crime survivors as well.”
The broader political context of the fight is just as significant. Bail reform has become a national flashpoint, with conservative politicians and prosecutors often blaming it for crime spikes despite evidence to the contrary. Trump’s orders mark the first attempt by a president to override state bail reforms directly, raising questions about legality and federal overreach.
In Washington, D.C., which has operated under a near-cashless system since 1992, reform has been tied to lower crime rates and high court appearance compliance. Constant said the city must continue to rely on its own track record.
“DC has been operating with a cashless bail system since 1992, I want to say. And crime has gone down dramatically in DC. And if they continue to rely on those figures and continue to amplify what has been working and honestly just holding the line, they may be able to protect themselves.”
She acknowledged, however, that the fight is unlikely to remain confined to the nation’s capital.
“President Trump has actively named some of the other cities that he’s going to begin targeting, and I think it’s important for folks to get ready to be next in line for this battle.”
While constitutional challenges may loom, Constant said her priority is defending reforms on the ground. “Rooting back into amplifying stats figures and not getting caught up in this battle around rhetoric and false information and really continuing to hold the line around what has worked in the past” is essential, she said.
For advocates like Constant, the stakes extend beyond bail reform itself. The orders signal an attempt to re-entrench wealth as the central determinant of pretrial freedom, despite decades of evidence showing that alternatives are more effective and more just.
As Vera’s Rahman warned, “Trump’s attack on these sensible, evidence-backed policies is an attack on safety, accountability, and justice for all. We cannot allow the president to put this escalating power grab above the well-being of our communities.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
