Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition

Background

President Barack Obama's Executive Order 13688, issued in January 2015, sought to address growing concerns about the militarization of local law enforcement agencies and the potential for civil rights violations associated with federal programs that provided military equipment to these agencies. Before it was revoked, the order initiated a comprehensive review and regulation effort across several federal departments and agencies, fundamentally shifting how law enforcement acquired controlled equipment. The implementation of an interagency Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group was intended to standardize procedures and ensure that equipment acquisition and use complied with civil liberties and federal nondiscrimination laws.

The initiative impacted administrative processes by developing government-wide policies and guidelines concerning the transfer and purchase of military-style equipment. This included creating a list of controlled items that required special authorization and the necessity of civilian oversight. Agencies participating in these programs, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security, started to harmonize their protocols, increasing transparency in how controlled items were distributed and utilized within local law enforcement sectors. Notably, the order stipulated specific training requirements for law enforcement officials to ensure the civil rights of citizens were protected when military-style equipment was used.

The operational changes brought on by the executive order also aimed at ensuring accountability at the local level. For instance, it mandated local civilian government reviews of law enforcement requests for controlled equipment, enhancing community participation in decision-making processes. Reports on significant incidents involving such equipment became necessary, encouraging a culture of reflection and adjustment to stated policies. Furthermore, the introduction of a monitoring system inhibited unauthorized transfers of controlled equipment, thereby ensuring accountability and compliance with federal standards.

Reason for Revocation

President Donald Trump revoked the executive order in August 2017, signaling a fundamental shift in the federal government's approach to law enforcement and public safety policy. This revocation occurred within a broader context where Trump's administration aimed to redefine the federal government's relationship with state and local policing agencies, pivoting towards a platform underscoring law enforcement empowerment and autonomy rather than restriction and oversight. The administration's ideological stance prioritized public safety by enhancing law enforcement capabilities, arguing that previous restrictions hampered police effectiveness during critical incidents.

The revocation can also be viewed as a part of Trump's broader law-and-order ideology, which emphasized deterring crime through a show of strength and enhanced police empowerment. This ideological shift was based on the perception that community safety was at risk, and that local law enforcement agencies required not only more autonomy but also more resources and military-grade equipment to maintain control and manage crime rates effectively. Concurrently, the administration rebuffed the previous administration's cautious approach that prioritized civil liberties over perceived law enforcement needs.

Additionally, the Trump administration's decision was also grounded in a political strategy to forge stronger alliances with law enforcement communities. By revoking Obama’s restrictions on military equipment distribution, Trump essentially reinvigorated relationships with police organizations who had reportedly shown dissatisfaction with the limitations imposed by the previous administration. By framing the revocation as a necessary measure to protect officers and communities, the administration sought to bolster support among state and local law enforcement allies.

The directive's revocation also reflects a broader skepticism towards federal oversight and regulation, which the Trump administration frequently argued was unnecessarily burdensome. By cancelling the order, Trump aligned with a federalist perspective favoring state and local discretion over centralized authority. This deregulation perspective resonated with a core belief that local communities should determine their law enforcement strategies without heavy-handed federal intervention.

Winners

Local law enforcement agencies stood to gain the most from the withdrawal of restrictions on military-grade equipment. The revocation effectively reinstated their access to a broader array of federal resources, enhancing their capacity to maintain public order. The ability to acquire military equipment such as armored vehicles, high-caliber weapons, and riot gear without cumbersome federal oversight was viewed favorably by many police departments, which argued that these tools were essential for effectively combatting crime and violence, especially in high-risk environments.

Suppliers and manufacturers of military and tactical equipment potentially benefited from the revocation as well. Companies such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin, which specialize in producing military-grade equipment, likely saw an increase in demand as local law enforcement agencies resumed procuring items previously restricted under the Obama administration. This resumption of commerce provided financial windfalls to defense contractors positioned to supply high-demand items swiftly.

Lastly, political groups and individuals aligned with the law-and-order agenda found their narratives validated by the order's revocation. By casting federal deregulatory moves as beneficial to public safety, proponents of a bolstered law enforcement presence effectively gained political traction and support, bolstering their advocacy for similar deregulatory efforts in other public safety and national security arenas.

Losers

Civil rights organizations were among the most vocal critics of the revocation, concerned about the implications for police-community relations and the potential for civil liberty abuses. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP argued that reintegrating military equipment into local law enforcement arsenals disproportionately targeted minority communities, exacerbating existing tensions and fostering an atmosphere of fear and mistrust between residents and police forces.

Communities prone to force-heavy policing policies bore the brunt of the revocation's detrimental effects. Observers argued that the increased availability of military equipment could lead to escalated violent encounters, particularly during public demonstrations or situations requiring crowd control, thereby sidestepping community engagement and de-escalation tactics. Reports of abuses in the application of tactical weapons and gear affirmed concerns of escalated militarization of the police, threatening civil liberties.

In a broader sense, the initiative negatively impacted efforts toward introducing more transparent and accountable policing protocols at the national level. Investigative journalists and policymakers advocating for reforms aimed at curbing systemic inequities in law enforcement saw the revocation as a significant setback, potentially stalling momentum for additional progressive policy changes. The absence of stringent oversight mechanisms fostered an environment where rule enforcement relied heavily on individual agencies' discretion, compromising efforts to uniformly enforce protective civil rights across jurisdictions.