Trump Just Gave Thousands of Bayonets And Hundreds of Grenade Launchers Back To Police
President Trump continues to be a man of his word in all the wrong ways.
Today the president made good on his to the Fraternal Order of Police to rescind and put from the U.S. military back in the hands of police. It also leaves law enforcement’s federally provided drones, explosives, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles .
The result? Weapons of war will again be used to police our communities, no questions asked. Your town could be the next Ferguson or Fallujah.
When President Obama issued the executive order, which charged a federal agency working group with implementing oversight and protocols around the weapons of war given to local law enforcement agencies, he did so in response to calls from many Americans that their communities not be treated like war zones. from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars expressed horror that they, while on active duty overseas, were less heavily armed than the local police in Ferguson. (R-Calif.) said, “The idea that state and local police departments need tactical vehicles and MRAPs with gun turrets is excessive.” (R-Ky.) described the need to differentiate a “police response and a military response.”
Clearly, the new president disagrees with members of his own party, confusing Missouri with Mosul. In a from the Fraternal Order of Police, then-Republican nominee Trump said of the Department of Defense program that distributes these weapons that “[t]he 1033 program is an excellent program that enhances community safety” and that he would “rescind the current executive order.” In making its case for the 1033 program and others, the FOP found “offensive” the notion “that the equipment could be misapplied” and should therefore be subjected to federal oversight.
The of E.O. 13688 dismantles this necessary oversight. E.O. 13688 created an that included the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security — the of military weapons and equipment to law enforcement. At minimum, the working group ensured that the agencies doling out these military-grade weapons were talking to one another, but it also established necessary policies, including the prohibition on bayonets and grenade launchers.
But even with federal officials now talking, we know the 1033 program is still plagued by problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently disguised itself as a federal law enforcement agency and received 1033 military ware, no questions asked.
Without interagency coordination, it is now possible that the Department of Defense could provide an MRAP to a police department subjected to Department of Justice complaints of police misconduct — that is, if this administration even continues to systemic police misconduct.
Even with the interagency working group’s oversight since January 2015, we continue to see unwarranted police militarization . Just look at law enforcement’s response at Standing Rock, where armored vehicles, automatic rifles, concussion grenades, sound cannons, and water cannons were used against peaceful protestors. Consider Baton Rouge, where those organizing around the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling were met with . And we still have SWAT teams detonating when executing home searches for drugs. Do you remember ?
Many in law enforcement fail to see how military-grade weapons in America’s communities have negative consequences.
So, what’s next? There are three immediate responses needed to the rescission of the executive order:
- Communities must the federal government for instigating police militarization.
- Congress must continue their of the 1033 program and enact the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act to eliminate the federal gifting of MRAPs and grenades to police once and for all.
- State and local communities must over the weapons of war coming to their towns, just as we are asking them to take control of surveillance.
On Inauguration Day, the White House published an reminding us that “[t]he Trump Administration will be a law and order administration.” The that “[t]he dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and promises to “end it.” “more community engagement” and “more effective policing.”
Given today’s executive action, just how this administration plans to reconcile these goals is not clear. We know that ,” as it does not , , or . And we hope this administration does not think that treating neighborhoods like war zones is an effective way to create “more community engagement.”
If the new president wants to be the president of “,” he must listen to the who have said they do not want weapons of wars in their communities.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.