On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14179, titled Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. This sweeping order aims to bolster the United States’ leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) by removing regulatory and institutional hurdles across multiple sectors.
Following this landmark directive, the White House released two subsequent memorandums, M-25-21 and M-25-22, which outline specific applications and guidelines for AI integration, particularly in governmental operations. While these initiatives hold immense potential for innovation, their impact on policing and procedural justice is a subject of growing debate.
In particular, the executive order and its accompanying memos are expected to influence policing in three critical areas:
1. Predictive policing and resource allocation
Memos M-25-21 and M-25-22 pave the way for the use of AI in predictive policing, wherein algorithms analyze historical crime data to forecast future incidents. This approach could help departments allocate resources more effectively, potentially reducing crime rates in high-risk areas. For instance, predictive software might identify patterns of car theft in specific neighborhoods, allowing officers to deploy targeted patrols.
To overcome concerns about equity, departments must ensure that the data used for predictive policing is carefully vetted to eliminate biases. Regular audits of algorithms and transparent reporting can help build public trust while maintaining accountability. Additionally, involving community stakeholders in discussions about how predictive tools are implemented can foster collaboration and mutual understanding.
2. Enhanced surveillance and data integration
AI-powered surveillance technologies, such as facial recognition and automated license plate readers, are expected to become widespread under the framework of E.O. 14179. These systems can process vast amounts of data in real time, aiding in the identification of suspects and the prevention of crimes.
While these tools may improve efficiency and accuracy, they raise privacy concerns. To address these issues and improve accountability, police departments can adopt clear guidelines on the ethical use of surveillance technologies. Independent oversight bodies can be established to monitor compliance with privacy standards, ensuring that these tools are used responsibly and without infringing on individual rights.
3. Accountability mechanisms
The memos allow for integrating AI into body-worn cameras equipped with real-time analytics, enabling these devices to automatically analyze footage and flag instances of excessive force or misconduct. This application aims to enhance oversight and transparency within police departments.
Implications for policing
The adoption of AI technologies in law enforcement, spurred by this executive order and the accompanying memos, is expected to revolutionize several aspects of policing. From predictive analytics and surveillance systems to resource optimization and data analysis, AI could enhance the capabilities of police departments. However, its implementation raises significant questions about equity, accountability and trust. Addressing these concerns will be critical to ensure successful adoption and reinforce public confidence in law enforcement operations.
The pillars of procedural justice — fairness, transparency, voice and impartiality — serve as the foundation of trust between law enforcement and communities. The integration of AI, while promising, poses challenges to these principles:
- Fairness: AI’s reliance on historical data could compromise fairness if the data contains biases against marginalized groups. Ensuring equity will require robust oversight, diverse training datasets, and regular audits of AI systems to prevent discriminatory outcomes.
- Transparency: AI algorithms are often referred to as “black boxes” due to their complexity and lack of explainability. For procedural justice to prevail, departments must prioritize algorithmic transparency. Communities deserve to understand how decisions — such as resource allocation or suspect profiling — are made.
- Voice: One of the core tenets of procedural justice is giving individuals a voice in the process. AI tools, if not carefully implemented, risk sidelining human judgment. Departments must strike a balance, ensuring that technology supports, rather than replaces, the discretion of officers and the inclusion of community input.
- Impartiality: Impartiality demands that every individual is treated equally under the law. While AI has the potential to reduce human bias, it must itself be free from bias. Ongoing evaluation and refinement of AI systems will be critical to uphold this pillar.
To address the concerns raised by the integration of AI technologies in policing, departments can adopt a multi-pronged approach.
First, transparency and accountability must be central to the design and deployment of these systems. Police departments can establish independent oversight committees that include legal experts, technologists and community representatives to review the development and application of AI tools. These committees would ensure that the algorithms are free from biases and that their use aligns with principles of fairness and justice.
Second, comprehensive training programs should be implemented for officers to familiarize them with the ethical implications and operational aspects of AI technologies. By equipping officers with the knowledge to identify potential pitfalls — such as data misinterpretation or overreliance on technology — departments can bridge the gap between AI capabilities and human judgment.
Third, public engagement is crucial. Police departments can host town hall meetings and workshops to educate citizens on the role of AI in modern policing and gather input on its implementation. Such efforts can alleviate fears, enhance transparency, and foster collaboration between law enforcement and communities.
Lastly, clear policies governing data privacy and the ethical use of AI tools should be enacted. These policies must specify the scope, limitations and safeguards for technologies like facial recognition or predictive policing. Regular audits and public reporting on the effectiveness and impact of these tools can further reinforce accountability while ensuring adherence to civil liberties.
The path forward
As police departments prepare to embrace AI under the directives of E.O. 14179 and the associated memos, they must navigate a complex landscape of opportunities and risks. Policymakers and police leaders must collaborate to establish ethical guidelines, accountability measures and community engagement strategies.
Technology alone cannot uphold justice; thus, human oversight should remain a cornerstone of AI-assisted policing. Officers must be empowered to override algorithmic suggestions when necessary, ensuring decisions are grounded in context and empathy. By blending technological advancements with human discretion, departments can better achieve procedural justice goals.
Training programs will be essential to equip officers with the skills needed to work alongside AI tools effectively. Additionally, independent oversight bodies should be established to monitor the deployment of AI in policing, ensuring it aligns with the principles of procedural justice.
Conclusion
Executive Order 14179 and its accompanying memos represent a pivotal step toward integrating AI into public institutions, including law enforcement. If implemented responsibly, these technologies could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of policing while reinforcing public trust. However, without careful attention to fairness, transparency, voice and impartiality, the risk of undermining procedural justice remains significant. As we stand on the brink of an AI-driven future, the challenge will be to harness its potential while preserving the core values of justice and equity.
| WATCH: Generative AI in law enforcement: Questions police chiefs need to answer
