According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal impact of HB 2217 is indeterminate at this time. While the bill establishes a grant program to equip law enforcement vehicles with bullet-resistant components, the total cost would largely depend on two factors: the number of grant applications submitted and the amount of appropriations made by the Legislature to fund the program. Because these variables are currently unknown, a precise estimate of program costs could not be determined.

The bill assigns the Criminal Justice Division within the Office of the Governor the responsibility to administer the program. However, it is assumed that the administrative costs associated with managing the grant program could be absorbed using existing resources. This means no additional appropriations for staffing or administration are anticipated unless the volume of grants dramatically exceeds current operational capacity.

At the local level, the bill is expected to have no significant fiscal implications for law enforcement agencies. Agencies that participate would benefit from state grant funding to cover vehicle upgrades but would not incur notable new costs themselves​.

Overall, the bill creates a framework for improving officer safety while attempting to minimize new administrative burdens. However, it leaves open the question of how much funding will ultimately be appropriated and how large the financial impact on the state budget could become.

HB 2217 proposes creating a new grant program within the Office of the Governor to provide financial assistance for equipping law enforcement vehicles with bullet-resistant components. While the goal of enhancing officer safety is commendable, the means chosen — a permanent state-level grant program — raises significant concerns regarding the size and scope of government, fiscal responsibility, and local accountability.

The bill represents a clear expansion of state government, introducing a new funding program that would require indefinite administration and oversight. Even though administrative costs are expected to be absorbed initially, the broader fiscal impact remains indeterminate, meaning taxpayers are being committed to future spending without a clear limit. This open-ended financial exposure conflicts with the principle of limited government and responsible budgeting. Moreover, by providing state money for a traditionally local function, the bill undermines the responsibility of local governments to prioritize and fund the essential needs of their law enforcement agencies.

Importantly, HB 2217 also risks creating a precedent for more special-interest grant programs, opening the door to future demands for state funding across other areas traditionally managed locally. Although the bill does not impose regulatory burdens on private individuals or businesses, its growth of government functions and potential taxpayer impact outweigh the good intentions behind it. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2217 unless it is substantially amended to impose strict funding limits, sunset provisions, and stronger local cost-sharing requirements.

• Individual Liberty: The bill supports the individual liberty of peace officers by improving their physical safety while on duty. Protecting officers' lives from lethal attacks while in patrol vehicles helps safeguard their most fundamental right — the right to life. However, this benefit is limited to government employees and does not broadly enhance liberty for the general public.
• Personal Responsibility: By creating a state grant program to fund equipment that local law enforcement agencies could and should fund themselves, the bill undermines the principle of personal responsibility. Local governments are relieved of the need to prioritize officer safety within their own budgets, relying instead on state taxpayers to shoulder the burden.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly regulate private businesses, it redirects public money into a specific industry (bullet-resistant vehicle equipment manufacturers and installers), which can create market distortions. A truly free market should operate without government-selected winners, even for good causes like officer protection.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect private property rights. It deals solely with publicly-owned (government-owned) vehicles and equipment.
• Limited Government: The bill clearly expands the size and scope of state government by establishing a new grant program without clear funding caps, creating a new ongoing administrative function. Even if the immediate administrative burden is minor, it moves Texas away from the principle that government should be minimal, focused, and restrained.

• SB 1788 (Same As)