It’s Past Time to End the Federal Militarization of Police
You’ve probably seen it by now, on B-roll if not in real life: Police and sheriff’s deputies spraying protesters with a water cannon mounted on a mine resistant vehicle. Combat vehicles rolling down American streets. Police — some with combat helmets and night vision goggles — touting military-grade rifles. These are America’s militarized police forces, brought to your community in no small part by billions of dollars in federal spending. No federal program is more emblematic of America’s police militarization problem than 1033, named for a section of law that allows the U.S. military to directly distribute weapons of war to police and sheriff’s departments.
Representative Nydia Velázquez will soon to repeal 1033. Our organizations have been on the front lines of the fight against militarized police, and ACLU researchers recently spent months analyzing the 1033 program. Our findings give rise to a straightforward recommendation: Congress should pass the Demilitarizing Local Law Enforcement Act of 2021 and President Joe Biden should sign it into law.
The 1033 program gives police and sheriff's departments unique and unprecedented access to military gear. Since the program was created in 1996, the U.S. military has given roughly 10,000 law enforcement agencies $7.4 billion worth of equipment including grenade launchers, batons, combat vehicles, and hundreds of thousands of rifles. Though police first employed these classes of weapons most in raids similar to the one that killed Breonna Taylor, more recently they have also used them against protesters across the country, including in , , , , , and just last week, in . The frequency of state violence against protesters in the U.S. makes it easy to forget that, if our military used tear gas against protesters elsewhere, it would be a .
The transfer of military equipment to state and local law enforcement is a legacy of America’s “forever wars” on drugs, crime, and terror. Congress first enabled the practice in order to facilitate “counter-drug activities” then expanded it under the guise of “counter-terrorism.” Racism and Islamophobia motivated the policymakers who inaugurated these failed “wars,” and the ill effects of America’s militarized police forces continue to be most pronounced in Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.
Attempts at Reform Have Failed
Rep. Velázquez’s bill is not the first time that 1033 has faced serious scrutiny. After the highly militarized police response to people protesting the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014, President Barack Obama signed in order to curb the transfer of military equipment to state and local police and to establish transparency and oversight of the 1033 program. Obama’s executive order placed new controls on classes of military equipment such as combat vehicles; entirely banned a few items, such as tracked armored personnel carriers, bayonets, and firearms over .50 calibre; and required that data about each piece of military equipment given to police and sheriff’s departments be made public.
The reforms may have looked good on paper, but our research shows what they actually accomplished on the ground. The short answer? Very little.
The number of militarized vehicles in circulation continued to increase despite the reforms. The new oversight mechanisms to constrain the flow of dangerous gear proved to be toothless: Law enforcement agencies satisfied requirements that military gear serve a necessary purpose with repeated and vague justifications such as “FOR HIGH RISK OPERATIONS,” “HIGH RISK WARRANTS,” and “COUNTER DRUG.”
Provisions of the reforms intending to encourage law enforcement agencies to better protect civil rights and civil liberties similarly accomplished little. Even the most highly publicized moments of police violence seem to have had no effect on a law enforcement agency’s receipt of military equipment. For example, Baton Rouge police received a helicopter mere months after the 2016 police killing of Alton Sterling, and NYPD received two mine-resistant vehicles (MRAPs) just a couple of years after the 2014 police killings of Akai Gurley and Eric Garner.
The reforms may have looked good on paper, but our research shows what they actually accomplished on the ground. The short answer? Very little.
The number of assault rifles sent to state and local police departments did fall while the reforms were in effect, but this decrease seems to be more a result of fewer troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan than of Obama’s reforms. Indeed, after Donald Trump rescinded the reforms in 2017, the number of rifles transferred remained flat.
The failure of reforms is further demonstrated by the fact that, at the end of the reform period, state and local law enforcement agencies possessed 78,100 assault rifles and 1,400 militarized vehicles — all transferred through 1033.
The picture today is roughly the same. Eighty institutions of higher education currently possess seven less-lethal firing devices, six MRAPS, an armored truck, another combat vehicle, 159 shotguns and pistols, and 622 assault rifles. Nine K-12 schools’ police officers have 96 assault rifles, and one K-12 district near Houston operates an MRAP.
Let’s Divest from Policing and Invest in Communities
Do you want your local K-12 school — or your local university or local police force — to have assault rifles, an MRAP, combat vehicles, or other weapons of war? Are there other resources your community could make better use of? Among the many problems of police spending programs like 1033 that they take these decisions away from us.
America’s problems with police militarization are caused not only by the use of military equipment and military tactics, but also by ideologies that envision police as an occupying force, especially in areas where Black, Brown, and Indigenous people live. Repealing 1033 is a necessary first step in demilitarizing local law enforcement agencies, but police more commonly inflict violence with guns, tasers, batons, and even bicycles than with sniper rifles and MRAPs. As part of a broader initiative to divest from policing and invest in communities, Congress and the President should work to .
You can read our complete analysis of 1033 and see all our recommendations here.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.