Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety

Background

Impact on Law and Regulation

Before its revocation, President Biden’s Executive Order 14074 (EO 14074) fundamentally altered the landscape of American policing and criminal justice at the federal, state, and local levels. It pushed for sweeping reforms aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and equity in law enforcement. Among its most notable directives, EO 14074 mandated the creation of a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database to document instances of misconduct by law enforcement officers. This database served as a centralized repository for monitoring inappropriate behaviors, effectively altering hiring and operational policies within federal law enforcement agencies. By requiring the inclusion of misconduct records, suspensions, terminations, and disciplinary actions, the order intended to prevent the employment of officers with a history of misbehavior across different jurisdictions.

Operational Adjustments and Enforcement

The executive order also directed federal law enforcement agencies to modify their use-of-force policies significantly. Agencies were tasked with incorporating stringent use-of-force standards reflective of guidelines that valued human life and highlighted the importance of de-escalation. Additionally, the directive effectively banned the use of chokeholds and carotid restraints, except in circumstances where the use of deadly force was deemed legally necessary. These operational adjustments necessitated robust training programs for officers and the establishment of accountability mechanisms to ensure adherence to the new policies, impacting the core operations and enforcement practices of agencies.

Agency Directives and Social Policy

EO 14074 further extended its reach by influencing social policy, focusing on supporting officer wellness and addressing systemic racism. It emphasized enhancing community trust through equitable policing and encouraged the development of community-response models as alternatives to traditional law enforcement, particularly for individuals experiencing mental health crises. These initiatives were backed by significant resource allocations for training law enforcement officers to handle situations with cultural sensitivity and awareness, effectively reshaping social policy concerning public safety. Additionally, the order sought to restrict the transfer of military-grade equipment to local law enforcement agencies, thereby aiming to curb the militarization of policing that many communities viewed as detrimental to trust building.

Reason for Revocation

Political and Ideological Context

Donald Trump’s revocation of EO 14074 on January 20, 2025, likely emblemized a broader ideological shift in federal policy under his administration. This move can be seen as an attempt to realign policing practices with a more conservative viewpoint that emphasizes law and order, aiming to counter perceptions of leniency embedded in Biden’s approach. Trump's political alignment typically prioritizes empowering law enforcement agencies with broad discretion, which contrasts sharply with the stringent oversight elements embedded in EO 14074. Thus, the revocation might be indicative of an administration seeking to bolster a tough-on-crime stance while reducing federal oversight.

Policy Reorientation

The decision to rescind measures put forth in EO 14074 may also reflect a strategic reorientation in response to rising crime rates and perceived inadequacies in public safety enforcement during the period it covered. The Trump administration may have perceived the Biden-era reforms as hamstringing law enforcement capabilities by imposing excessive regulations and bureaucratic stipulations that inadvertently hindered officer performance. This perspective views deregulation as necessary to free agencies from layers of compliance that could have been seen as undermining effectiveness and morale within the law enforcement community.

Contention Over Racial Equity

The revocation could also be traced to contentious debates surrounding racial equity in policing. EO 14074 sought to address systemic racism, a concept that remains polarizing across different political and social spectra. For an administration inclined to prioritize economic resurgence and the elimination of perceived social engineering within legal enforcement frameworks, dismantling the executive order’s racial equity mandates could align with efforts to de-emphasize race-focused directives in favor of a colorblind legalistic approach.

Local vs. Federal Control

Furthermore, the revocation ostensibly underscores the tension between federal oversight and state-level autonomy in policing matters. Trump’s ideological emphasis on state sovereignty would naturally advocate for reduced federal intervention, appealing to states’ rights proponents. By revoking EO 14074, Trump might be aiming to bolster local control over law enforcement practices, allowing states and municipalities to tailor their enforcement strategies without overt federal imposition.

Winners

Law Enforcement Agencies

With the revocation of EO 14074, traditional law enforcement agencies, especially those who felt hampered by the reporting requirements and behavioral regulations, stand to benefit significantly. Agencies that prioritize autonomy over federal oversight, such as local sheriff departments and state police units, are likely to find relief in the reduced administrative burden and the restoration of operational discretion. The easing of restrictions on military equipment and use-of-force tactics can enhance their tactical capabilities.

Private Defense and Surveillance Firms

Companies engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of military-grade equipment and advanced surveillance technologies also potentially benefit from the revocation. Firms like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, which supply armored vehicles and tactical gear, may see a resurgence in demand as local agencies regain access to previously restricted equipment. Similarly, firms providing body camera technology and data management systems could find opportunities as departments re-evaluate, or possibly scale back, the stringent management of surveillance footage.

Conservative Political Groups

Conservative political advocacy groups emphasizing law and order could perceive the revocation as a manifestation of their ideological influence. These groups often argue against what they view as the encroachment of federal mandates on local governance, and the rollback of EO 14074 aligns with their broader agenda of reducing federal oversight and emphasizing individual accountability and local control.

Losers

Civil Rights Organizations

Civil rights organizations that advocate for policing reforms and enhanced accountability mechanisms are among the most significant losers with the revocation of EO 14074. These groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Black Lives Matter, have long campaigned for increased transparency in law enforcement and systemic efforts to address racial disparities. The removal of the accountability database and the relaxation of use-of-force standards undermine their efforts to achieve meaningful reform.

Communities of Color

Communities of color, particularly those historically subjected to disproportionate police scrutiny and violence, stand to lose the most from the rescinding of such comprehensive reforms. EO 14074's emphasis on equitable policing aimed to address systemic biases, and its rollback may exacerbate existing tensions and mistrust between these communities and law enforcement agencies, further eroding public safety and cooperation in crime prevention.

Progressive Policymakers

Progressive policymakers who wield influence at the federal, state, and local levels will find their reform-oriented initiatives stifled by the change in federal priorities. The nullification of EO 14074 may stall legislative and policy advancements that progressives have championed, such as reducing aggressive policing tactics and reallocating resources towards community-oriented safety measures. This setback will likely spark renewed advocacy efforts but poses immediate operational hindrances in areas where such reforms were beginning to take hold with federal backing.