Safe Policing for Safe Communities

Background

The issuance of the Safe Policing for Safe Communities order under the Trump administration was a response to widespread civil unrest following several high-profile incidents involving police officers and African-American citizens. The executive order aimed to address public concerns around police conduct and rebuilding community trust. One way it achieved this was by introducing a credentialing system for state and local law enforcement agencies. These agencies were required to adhere to certain standards, such as the prohibition of chokeholds except when deadly force was permitted by law, to receive federal grants. For many agencies, the availability of federal grant money linked to this order provided significant incentives to reassess and amend their use-of-force policies in alignment with federal expectations.

In addition to impacting policies at various law enforcement agencies, the order mandated the creation of a database for sharing information related to law enforcement agencies’ use of force. This database included records of officer terminations, criminal convictions for on-duty actions, and civil judgments related to improper force usage. By combining data from federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial law enforcement entities, the order sought to promote transparency and accountability. In practice, however, the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of such data-sharing initiatives faced challenges, including concerns over privacy rights and the uneven collection of data across jurisdictions.

Beyond administrative regulations, the executive order also stressed the importance of social services, encouraging the integration of mental health professionals in situations traditionally handled by police alone. This directive suggested co-responder models, where mental health professionals would work alongside law enforcement officers, as a potential strategy to alleviate the burden on police dealing with mental health-related calls. Several municipalities piloted these models, demonstrating various levels of success in improving outcomes for individuals involved and reducing unnecessary confrontations between law enforcement and vulnerable populations.

Reason for Revocation

President Biden's decision to revoke this executive order in May 2022 demonstrated a broader intent to redefine the federal approach to policing reform. The Biden administration indicated a commitment to addressing systemic issues in law enforcement beyond the scope of operational adjustments or funding conditions. The remedial measures embodied in the original order, while aiming to align police practices with community expectations, were viewed by some as insufficiently comprehensive in addressing the deep-seated issues of racial bias and misconduct within law enforcement.

The revocation coincided with President Biden's announcement of more extensive federal policies aimed at reforming policing standards nationally. This strategic pivot suggested a preference for legislative solutions through collaboration with Congress to pass a more binding framework, such as the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which aimed to impose broader accountability measures, including banning chokeholds entirely at the federal level and transforming qualified immunity provisions for law enforcement officers.

Moreover, the Biden administration's equity-centered ideology underscored a recognition that systemic racism and police misconduct required it to go beyond credentialing and grant-based incentives. The shift toward comprehensive reform legislation above and beyond the constraints of an executive order reflected an ideological commitment to addressing civil rights issues at their core and striving for sustained structural change rather than incremental policy encouragement.

Additionally, the revocation might be seen in the context of a broader governmental effort to streamline the federal directives around policing and avoid duplication of agency efforts. President Biden’s administration advocated for enhancing current federal programs promoting community-oriented policing and expanding the Justice Department’s ability to investigate law enforcement agencies suspected of misconduct more robustly.

Winners

The revocation of Safe Policing for Safe Communities is likely to benefit civil rights organizations, which had previously critiqued the order for not going far enough in introducing enforceable standards for police conduct. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP welcomed the opportunity for more substantial legislative measures aimed at substantive policing reform. Their advocacy for more legally binding solutions aligns with Biden’s revocation efforts, which prioritize comprehensive reform over administrative adjustments.

Another group that could benefit from the order’s revocation is mental health professionals and social workers who support a more significant federal investment in addressing systemic societal issues beyond the realm of policing. By revoking this executive order, the administration might prioritize investments in community support models and mental health response teams, encouraging the development and funding of programs that integrate social services more deeply into public safety strategies.

Furthermore, local governments in predominantly minority communities could gain from a redirection of funds into community-based public safety initiatives rather than direct law enforcement enhancements. This shift could align federal resources with local priorities more centered on prevention and community engagement rather than solely on enforcement.

Losers

Specific law enforcement agencies that had adapted to comply with the Safe Policing for Safe Communities order to maintain federal grant eligibility could find themselves in uncertain financial positions. Agencies that relied heavily on the funds tied to the compliance requirements of the order might need to reassess their operational budgets if new federal policing priorities do not align with their current practices.

The revocation could potentially disadvantage small independent credentialing bodies that had expected an increase in demand tied to the executive order’s provisions. Organizations developed around assessing or providing law enforcement credentials may see a decrease in demand, as any potentially new requirements could reshape the landscape of accreditation and credentialing, impacting them financially.

Additionally, proponents of the original order who viewed it as a balanced approach to addressing law enforcement accountability—providing incentives without imposing federal mandates—may view the revocation unfavorably. Stakeholders favoring local control over policing practices—even if incentivized through grants—might consider this broader federal intervention detrimental to localized approaches.