In recent days, President Donald Trump has taken several significant actions that have affected policing in the United States. These moves not only reflect his enduring influence but also invite comparisons to his previous term in office. Let’s take a closer look at these actions and their implications.
Trump’s recent actions impacting policing
One of President Trump’s most notable actions has been the revocation of several police reform orders implemented by his successor, President Joe Biden. These orders were designed to enhance accountability and transparency in policing, primarily through the use of body cameras and the establishment of the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD) to track police misconduct. [1]
In addition, Trump has advocated for the expanded use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. He has argued that AI can enhance predictive policing, improve surveillance capabilities, and more efficiently identify potential threats. Critics, however, caution that without proper oversight, AI could amplify existing biases and contribute to increased instances of racial profiling and violations of civil liberties.
While concerns about AI in policing are valid, it is crucial to focus on implementing proper oversight rather than rejecting the technology outright. Establishing robust regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines can ensure that AI technologies are deployed in ways that enhance justice and fairness. Effective oversight can mitigate potential biases, ensuring that AI systems remain transparent, accountable, and committed to protecting civil liberties. Therefore, the goal should not be to dismiss the use of AI in policing but to advocate for its responsible implementation through rigorous oversight mechanisms, which are likely to be established in the near future.
To better understand the implications of President Trump’s recent moves, it’s helpful to examine how his policies during his first term shaped law enforcement practices and set the stage for his current actions.
Trump’s first-term policing policies
During his first presidency, Trump signed several executive orders that significantly impacted policing. One of his earliest actions in 2017 focused on reviving and expanding the 1033 Program, which facilitates the transfer of surplus military equipment to local police departments. This move drew widespread criticism from civil rights groups, who argued that it contributed to the militarization of law enforcement. [2]
As a chief, we benefited from the 1033 Program by obtaining an armored vehicle in western Nebraska, a region where such resources were otherwise unavailable and far beyond our budget. There was a clear need for the vehicle, which has since been deployed multiple times with optimal outcomes. Without the 1033 Program, acquiring this critical resource would not have been possible.
While concerns about military surplus being allocated to police are understandable, it is important to recognize the legitimate purposes such equipment can serve. Integrating surplus military resources can significantly enhance police readiness, enabling agencies to respond effectively to extraordinary situations. When police operate in unison with the public and adhere to established procedural justice principles, this approach can foster trust and collaboration. By upholding transparency, accountability, and fairness, police agencies can ensure they are prepared for unforeseen challenges while maintaining community confidence and support. Ultimately, it may not be the equipment itself that raises concerns, but rather how it is utilized and the context in which it is deployed.
Another significant action during President Trump’s first term was the establishment of the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice under Executive Order 13896, issued on October 28, 2019. The commission was tasked with studying crime and policing in the United States but faced criticism for its lack of diversity and the exclusion of civil rights perspectives. [3]
In contrast, the Biden administration aimed to roll back some of these measures, placing greater emphasis on community policing and de-escalation tactics. Biden’s orders included restrictions on the transfer of military equipment to law enforcement and increased funding for community-based policing programs. As a proponent of community policing, I recognize its importance but question how to effectively balance the use of equipment for emergency preparedness with the need to strengthen community relationships.
During his presidency, Trump issued an executive order encouraging police agency accreditation to enhance professional standards and accountability within law enforcement. This initiative aimed to promote best practices and improve operational efficiency across police departments. In contrast, the Biden administration prioritized the enforcement of DOJ consent decrees, which impose federal oversight on police agencies to address patterns of misconduct and civil rights violations.
While both approaches share the goal of improving policing, accreditation programs can be more cost-effective for agencies. These programs allow for localized implementation of standards with periodic reviews, reducing the financial and administrative burdens associated with federal oversight. By adhering to accredited standards, police agencies can achieve high levels of professionalism and community trust without incurring the extensive costs tied to ongoing federal intervention. I anticipate that Trump will shift focus back to accreditation efforts, potentially decreasing the reliance on DOJ consent decrees in the near future.
The ripple effects of Trump’s rollback of Biden’s orders
Trump’s recent cancellation of Biden’s orders has significant ramifications.
The return of military equipment
Trump’s rollback of restrictions on military equipment transfers could result in a resurgence of its use in policing, potentially leading to heightened tensions between law enforcement and communities. However, if handled appropriately — with thorough training, transparent usage policies and clear communication — this transfer could enhance public trust and police readiness rather than hinder it. Proper oversight ensures such equipment is used responsibly to foster cooperation and community safety.
Transparency at risk: The National Database rollback
The dismantling of the national police misconduct database could undermine efforts to hold officers accountable and erode public trust. The removal of body camera mandates could also reduce transparency and make it more difficult to address instances of police misconduct. However, the implementation of a national database for police misconduct, such as the Brady list, has highlighted several significant issues, notably the prevalence of clerical errors resulting in nearly half of the listings being inaccurate.
Balancing technology and accountability
As AI systems are increasingly used to manage officer workloads, the responsibility for accuracy has shifted to officers, raising concerns about the practicality of such expectations. Human errors are inevitable, and placing the burden of maintaining flawless records on officers is both unrealistic and potentially harmful, contributing to stress and burnout that can impact overall wellness.
A hybrid approach could offer a more balanced solution, where AI assists with data management and the public disclosure of misconduct is handled with sensitivity to avoid unnecessarily humiliating officers. This approach could improve morale, aid in recruitment and retention, and ensure that officers are not unduly penalized for minor infractions or errors, fostering a more supportive work environment.
However, it is critical to consider the unintended consequences of such a system. Increased scrutiny could lead to heightened stress and, in some cases, even suicidal ideation among officers. Therefore, developing a transparent, fair system with robust checks and balances is essential to promote justice, accountability, and the mental well-being of law enforcement personnel.
AI in policing
AI’s role in policing has been a subject of ongoing debate. Advocates highlight its potential to improve efficiency in law enforcement by predicting crime hotspots, analyzing large datasets, and identifying suspects through facial recognition technology. However, the deployment of AI in policing also raises significant ethical and legal concerns.
Research indicates that AI systems can inherit and even amplify biases embedded in the data they are trained on. Without rigorous checks and balances, this could result in the disproportionate targeting of minority communities, leading to unfair treatment and further eroding trust in law enforcement.
Beyond these high-profile applications, it’s important to consider the potential for AI in backend systems that often receive less attention. Many of these systems rank low on the NIST risk matrix and could be implemented more effectively with proper planning. The current tendency to group all AI applications without distinguishing their specific use cases leads to inefficiencies and missed opportunities.
Recognizing the complexities of AI implementation is essential to shaping its future in law enforcement. Active participation in the development of AI systems is anticipated, with a focus on achieving a balance between technological advancement and ethical considerations. By addressing these challenges head-on, the future of AI in policing can be one that promotes both efficiency and equity.
|WATCH: This video presents five key questions law enforcement leaders can use to guide the responsible integration of AI into their operations. Read more here.
Conclusion
President Trump’s recent actions reflect a continuation of some policies he championed during his first term, with a renewed emphasis on enhancing law enforcement capabilities through AI. However, the revocation of Biden’s orders and the expanded use of AI in policing introduce significant challenges. Striking a balance between leveraging technology for public safety and safeguarding civil liberties remains a critical issue that demands thoughtful consideration and robust oversight.
I am eager to contribute to discussions and strategies that reduce crime while ensuring transparency, accountability, and equitable policing. By combining community engagement with technological advancements and safeguarding civil liberties, we can address biases and foster trust. Moving forward, I hope to support policies and technologies that promote justice, fairness, and safety, serving communities and strengthening collaboration between law enforcement and the public.
References
2. Defense Logistics Agency (n.d.) 1033 Program FAQs.
3. DOJ. (2020.) Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice Releases Final Report.
| NEXT: What can police expect from President Trump’s first hundred days — and beyond?
