The Homeland Security Department in recent weeks announced that it intended to rely more on the risk of a terrorist attack, and less on politics, when it hands out funds under a key anti-terror programme. It remains to be seen how the money will be handed out.

National security experts agree that anti-terrorism money should be handed out based on the risk of an attack and the harm it would do. But members of Congress have trouble seeing any programme as above politics and patronage.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has been a consistent supporter of an approach based more on risk. He promised to rely more heavily on risk in making decisions on allocating $765 million under the Urban Area Security Initiative. There are, however, several factors that may interfere with his good intentions. The department intends to take into account the degree to which a grant could be used to help with non-terrorist disasters, like hurricanes or pandemics.

Chertoff’s emphasis on risk is right. We hope that the Homeland Security Department sticks to this principle when it makes its final grant decisions under the Urban Area Security Initiative later this year. We hope that when Congress passes the next Homeland Security appropriation it does a better job of putting risk ahead of politics.