Two-thirds of applicants were turned away because the money simply wasn't there.
Across the country, houses of worship have long served as sanctuaries — places where communities gather in trust and openness. Yet that very openness has made them vulnerable, and a growing coalition of religious leaders and lawmakers is now pressing Congress to invest $1 billion in the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, a federal lifeline that in 2024 could only answer one in three calls for help. The push reflects a deeper reckoning: that the freedom to worship in safety should not depend on the size of a congregation's treasury.
- In 2024, roughly two-thirds of houses of worship that applied for federal security grants were turned away — not because their needs were unreal, but because the money ran out.
- Smaller congregations are left most exposed, unable to afford cameras, reinforced entrances, or trained personnel without outside support.
- Advocates are framing the funding gap as both a security failure and a civil rights concern, noting that threat levels and financial resources are distributed unequally across religious communities.
- A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and faith leaders is now rallying behind a $1 billion expansion of the grant program — enough, they argue, to meet actual documented demand.
- The proposal still faces the friction of the federal budget process, where good intentions must compete with competing priorities and limited political bandwidth.
On Capitol Hill, a coalition of religious leaders and lawmakers is pressing for a major expansion of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program — the federal mechanism that helps houses of worship pay for security cameras, reinforced doors, trained personnel, and other protective measures. The ask is $1 billion in new funding, a figure advocates say is grounded in real demand rather than aspiration.
The urgency behind the push is rooted in a stark 2024 statistic: only about one-third of applicants received grants that year. Congregations that had identified vulnerabilities, assembled security plans, and made their case to federal reviewers were still turned away — not because their needs were questioned, but because the program simply lacked the resources to say yes.
For smaller religious institutions, the gap between what security costs and what they can afford on their own is often unbridgeable. The grant program exists to close that gap, ensuring that a congregation's safety doesn't hinge on the size of its endowment. Advocates are also framing the issue as one of civil rights: threat levels are not evenly distributed, and neither are institutional resources, making federal support a matter of equity as much as security.
Whether Congress will act remains the open question. The proposal carries unusual bipartisan support, and protecting houses of worship is not an ideologically divisive cause. But turning that goodwill into appropriations means navigating a crowded budget landscape. For the congregations denied in 2024 and waiting to try again, the outcome of this legislative push will determine whether their security plans move forward — or remain on hold.
On Capitol Hill, a coalition of religious leaders and lawmakers is pushing for a substantial increase in federal money aimed at helping houses of worship fortify their physical security. The vehicle for this effort is the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which distributes federal funds to religious institutions seeking to upgrade locks, install surveillance systems, hire security personnel, and otherwise harden their buildings against potential threats.
The need is urgent and the numbers tell why. In 2024, when houses of worship across the country submitted applications for security grants, only about one-third of them received funding. That means roughly two-thirds walked away empty-handed—congregations that had identified vulnerabilities, developed security plans, and made the case to federal reviewers that they needed help, only to be turned down because the money simply wasn't there.
For many religious institutions, the gap between what they need and what they can afford on their own is substantial. A new security camera system, reinforced doors, trained personnel, emergency communication upgrades—these are not cheap. Smaller congregations, in particular, often lack the budgets to absorb these costs alone. The federal grant program exists precisely to bridge that gap, to ensure that a congregation's ability to protect its members doesn't depend entirely on its endowment.
The advocates pushing for increased funding are framing this as both a security imperative and a civil rights issue. Houses of worship have faced a persistent threat landscape in recent years. Attacks on religious institutions have made headlines repeatedly. The vulnerability is real, and it's distributed unevenly—some communities face higher threat levels than others, some institutions have more resources than others. A well-funded grant program can help level that playing field.
The proposed solution is a $1 billion increase to the program's budget. That figure is not arbitrary. It's calibrated to what advocates say is needed to meet the actual demand—to move from a system where two-thirds of applicants are rejected to one where institutions with genuine security needs can actually access federal support. The math is straightforward: more money means more grants, which means more houses of worship can actually implement the security measures they've identified as necessary.
What remains to be seen is whether Congress will act. The proposal has support from both religious leaders and lawmakers, which is notable in a polarized environment. Security for houses of worship is not a partisan issue—it's a practical one. But translating that support into actual appropriations requires navigating the budget process, competing priorities, and the political will to allocate significant new federal resources to this particular need.
For the congregations that were denied funding in 2024 and are waiting to reapply, the outcome of this push matters enormously. It will determine whether they can move forward with security upgrades or whether they'll remain in a holding pattern, hoping that next year's application cycle will be different.
Notable Quotes
Religious leaders and lawmakers are advocating for increased federal funding to help houses of worship improve physical security— Capitol Hill coalition
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a house of worship need federal money for security in the first place? Can't congregations just budget for it themselves?
Some can, but many can't. A small congregation might have a few hundred members and a modest operating budget. Installing proper security—cameras, access control, trained personnel—can cost tens of thousands of dollars. That's not a line item most religious institutions can absorb without cutting something else vital.
So the federal government decided to help. But only a third of applicants got money last year. That's a pretty brutal rejection rate.
It is. And it's not because the applications were weak or the institutions weren't legitimate. It's simply that demand far exceeded supply. Two-thirds of the people who made the case that they needed help were turned away because there wasn't enough money in the program.
What happens to those congregations? Do they just accept the risk?
Some do. Some find other funding sources—donors, foundations, their own reserves. But many just stay vulnerable. They know what they need to do to improve security, they've done the planning, and they can't afford to execute it.
And the $1 billion increase would fix that?
It would substantially expand access. Not every congregation would get everything they want, but far more would be able to move forward with meaningful security improvements. It's about matching resources to actual need.
Is there political appetite for this?
There seems to be. Religious leaders across different traditions are aligned on it, and lawmakers from both parties recognize the issue. The question now is whether that support translates into actual budget action.