Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement's Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources

Background

Prior to its revocation, the executive order re-issued by the Trump administration in 2017 reversed previous restrictions on the transfer of certain surplus military equipment to state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies. Largely, it aimed to ease the restrictions put in place by former President Barack Obama through Executive Order 13688, which sought to demilitarize police forces across the United States. This order allowed the Department of Defense's 1033 program to provide law enforcement agencies with a broader range of military-grade equipment, including armored vehicles, large-caliber weapons, camouflage uniforms, and riot control resources. The administration argued that such equipment was essential for ensuring the safety of officers and civilians, especially in the face of rising domestic terrorism and violent crime rates.

The policy shift reversed a comprehensive review of the program initiated by the Obama administration, which concluded that the types of equipment and the manner in which they were used by law enforcement had undermined public trust—particularly in minority communities. Under the Trump administration’s directive, agencies such as the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security rolled back reports and recommendations from Obama’s era that highlighted the potential for exacerbating tensions between police and the communities they served. Consequently, police departments received more military-grade weapons and vehicles, leading to an increase in the visible militarization of law enforcement operations, particularly noted during public demonstrations and protests.

Operationally, this increase in asset allocation allowed for a tactical escalation during responses to public disorder, although it raised concerns about the militarization of America's police forces. It also negated the previous administration's efforts to instill additional checks, balances, and training for law enforcement agencies receiving military hardware. Advocates of the program’s expansion cited the life-saving potential for officers equipped with military-grade vehicles and protective gear in active shooter scenarios or other high-risk confrontations. However, critics argued that the re-militarization further distanced police from the communities they served and instilled a perception of officers as an occupying force rather than public servants.

Reason for Revocation

President Biden’s revocation of the order in 2022 signaled a return to a more restrained and cautious approach to the provision of military equipment to law enforcement, consistent with a broader ideological shift toward reform and accountability in policing practices. This move came amid rising national discourse around police reform, spurred on by high-profile incidents of police brutality and the subsequent public outcry for justice and equity. President Biden, aligning with the sentiments of progressive stakeholders, aimed to reduce the inflow of military hardware to civilian police agencies in an attempt to de-escalate the militarized image of domestic law enforcement.

The decision also served as part of a broader agenda to increase oversight, promote de-escalation techniques, and capitalize on community policing strategies. The administration leveraged this directive as an opportunity to re-establish public trust in institutions that had seen notable declines in credibility and legitimacy, specifically among African American, Latino, and Indigenous communities. By discontinuing the controversial practice, Biden's administration sought to mend the growing rift between law enforcement and the communities they patrol, especially those disproportionately affected by aggressive policing tactics.

The revocation was not merely a standalone policy reversal but was in concert with broader legislation efforts undertaken by the administration, including attempts to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which aimed to address systemic issues and reinforce police accountability on a federal scale. While implementation of such a law faced challenges in a divided Congress, Biden’s executive action on military equipment continued to be emblematic of an ideological commitment to promoting peace through coproduction of safety rather than conflict.

By pulling back on the militarization of police, Biden's administration sought not only to address the visible symptoms of distrust but also to foster a movement toward more equitable justice and community-oriented models of public safety. This ideological shift prioritized diplomacy and prevention over sheer force, aiming for outcomes that balance the needs for safety, civil rights, and community relations. Such measures were anticipated to catalyze systemic change in law enforcement philosophies and operational paradigms.

Winners

The revocation of Trump’s directive on police access to military equipment was widely viewed as a victory for civil rights organizations and social justice advocates. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Black Lives Matter movement, which have long campaigned against the militarization of policing, anticipated that the cessation of these transfers would reduce instances of police violence, particularly in marginalized communities. These organizations welcomed the shift towards policies that emphasize accountability and community engagement over militaristic posturing.

Communities that had historically borne the brunt of over-policing and aggressive law enforcement tactics stood to gain significantly from the change. The decision promised to improve relations between police departments and the public, especially those within minority communities, by moving away from confrontational approaches. The directive implicitly acknowledged the long-standing grievances that militarized policing exacerbated, thereby giving voice and agency to communities advocating for transformative justice instead of punitive measures.

Certain sectors of the public administration also saw advantages in the move toward nonviolent intervention policies. Public health departments and social service organizations, which champion investing in programs that tackle the roots of crime, poverty, and mental illness, viewed the reduction in military hardware allocations as a realignment toward more civic-minded priorities. This shift potentially opened avenues for increased resources and collaboration for community-based intervention strategies, aligning law enforcement efforts with broader public welfare objectives.

Losers

The primary groups impacted negatively by the revocation included specific law enforcement agencies that had come to rely on military equipment to supplement local resources. Police departments, especially those within jurisdictions experiencing high levels of violent crime, saw the revocation as a limitation that potentially left officers under-equipped for certain high-risk situations. Agencies protested that access to military-grade equipment served as an essential defense measure in cases of terrorism, mass shootings, and large-scale disturbances.

The defense industry and military surplus contractors faced a diminishment in revenues with the reduced demand for military-to-law enforcement transfers. Companies involved in the possession and sale of such equipment, possibly experiencing financial repercussions, would need to seek alternative markets to maintain profitability. These businesses potentially lost lucrative contracts and faced the need to diversify their client base or adjust operational models. Inventories of surplus gear either remained unredeemed or found limited distribution channels outside of law enforcement applications.

Furthermore, political factions advocating for stringent “law and order” stances perceived the executive decision as a setback. These voices often cited the potential for increased crime and threats to officer safety as reasons to bolster police armament. The reduced access to military equipment symbolized, for some, an erosion of authoritative response capabilities, potentially triggering polarized debates about public safety priorities and methodologies. As such, the opposition consisted not only of vocal political actors but also segments of the public skeptical of the shift towards less-militarized police tactics.