Some fear excessive use of force will rise as the DOJ drops oversight of police departments
The killing of George Floyd five years ago by a Minneapolis police officer ignited what many reform advocates hoped would be a national effort to end, or at least curb, excessive use of force.
But the Trump administration's decision this week to dismiss lawsuits and drop accountability agreements with several police departments could undo some of that momentum, proponents of federal oversight say.
'Having a blueprint for reform is one thing, but ensuring objective oversight is a whole other thing,' said Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor who has overseen use-of-force cases.
The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it would drop proposed consent decrees with Minneapolis and Louisville, Kentucky, and end investigations into police departments in Phoenix; Trenton, New Jersey; Memphis, Tennessee; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City; and the Louisiana State Police.
The Minneapolis consent decree, a court-enforced improvement plan that follows a civil rights abuse investigation, was reached after the 2020 death of Floyd.
Floyd was unarmed when police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes while he was handcuffed on the ground. The Louisville agreement was reached after the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor, who was shot by police officers while sitting unarmed in her Kentucky home.
Both killings sparked coast-to-coast protests that consumed the final months of Trump's first administration and ushered in a wave of investigations under U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the Biden administration.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement Wednesday that the consent decrees were 'overbroad,' 'factually unjustified' and based on 'an anti-police agenda.'
But abandoning these agreements could have a chilling effect on efforts that are already underway in Baltimore, Cleveland and Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer killed Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, in 2014.
That agreement required more training for police officers, policy changes to decrease the use of force and a more robust system for citizens to make complaints against officers. It also required that the mostly white police department do more to recruit people of color.
'It is important to not overstate what consent decrees do,' said Jin Hee Lee with the Legal Defense Fund, referring to the power of federal courts to enforce orders.
'They are very important and oftentimes necessary to force police departments to change their policies, to change their practices,' she added. 'But consent decrees were never the end all, be all.'
The Chicago Police Department, for example, entered into a consent decree in 2019 that is being managed by the state attorney general. As a result, the federal government's announcement does not impact the reform efforts currently underway there.
Consent decrees have a long history dating back to President Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill and are implemented after investigations into civil rights violations or unconstitutional practices. These investigations focus not on isolated instances but on policing cultures and policies that lead to the violations.
In responding to the Trump administration's announcement, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told reporters his city will 'comply with every sentence, of every paragraph, of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year.'
Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg said his city is adopting a police reform agreement that will include many of the goals from its federal consent decree, like hiring an independent monitor to oversee the department's progress.
On the flip side, supporters of local control argue that communities are better equipped to manage their own law enforcement agencies.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, who refused to comply with Garland's consent decree following a blistering 2024 report, said she would continue to pursue local reforms that serve her constituents' best interests. She has argued that it would be irresponsible to sign a contract without first evaluating it and has questioned the Justice Department's ability to improve local police forces.
According to the 126-page report, which included data from 2016 through 2024, the Phoenix Police Department routinely committed 'very significant and severe violations of federal law and the Constitution' and lacked accountability, supervision and training. Among the biggest concerns highlighted by the DOJ were racial discrimination during police encounters and reckless use of force.
The Justice Department issued 36 recommendations, including improved use-of-force training and new policies for encounters with vulnerable populations. But Gallego and several council members opposed the agreement, calling the accusations unsubstantiated and others asking for a full review before adopting it.
The city has since adopted a series of reforms aimed at addressing the DOJ's findings. It implemented a new use-of-force policy, developed new emergency training materials and assembled a civilian review board.
'We will continue to look for every opportunity to make sure we're serving our residents in the best way possible,' Gallego said in a statement. 'I said many times that we would adopt reforms and see them through, regardless of the DOJ investigation, and I meant it.'
Consent decrees have had mixed results. In Los Angeles, which exited its 12-year agreement in 2013, the police department continues to face excessive-use allegations and lawsuits.
Most recently, several students from the University of California, Los Angeles, sued the LAPD, alleging assault, battery and other violations by officers during campus protests last year. The students said in the lawsuit that they were shot by rubber bullets and subjected to unnecessary force at a pro-Palestinian encampment.
A spokesperson for the union representing police officers has called the allegations baseless and inflammatory.
In Baltimore, where the police department entered into a consent decree following the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray, who died after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody, reform efforts remain ongoing.
The force is now in the 'assessment' phase of its agreement, according to a city dashboard. In December, the DOJ applauded its progress, prompting a partial termination of the agreement.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO Trump Punts Decision on Bombing Iran in Wild New Twist
President Donald Trump will decide whether to attack Iran within the next two weeks, and has issued a plea to stave off the backlash in his MAGA base: Trust in Trump. As a MAGA civil war over military intervention threatens to tear his party apart, the president has left the door open to a diplomatic off-ramp. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said, in a direct message issued through his White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. The unexpected twist is reminiscent of the two week window Trump regularly gives Russia to start negotiating a genuine ceasefire with Ukraine. It comes after the president left the nation on edge for days about the possibility that he would help Israel destroy a deeply buried nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow, in northeast Iran, using a 30,000 pound bomb known as a 'bunker buster'. Trump gave numerous mixed messages, insisting the strikes could be imminent and saying it was 'too late' to talk while also insisting that there was scope for negotiations. On Wednesday, he even boasted that 'nobody knows what I'm doing' when it comes to Iran. Tensions escalated this week when he abruptly departed the G7—despite having meetings locked with global allies including Australia and India—to rush to Washington to deal with the issue. For the next three days, he then huddled with his national security advisers to decide whether the U.S. military helps Israel's bombing campaign. But such a move would risk any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal Trump has been pursuing and threatened to tear apart the very base that got him elected. The MAGA civil war over the Iran put conservatives such as pro-Israel war hawks Laura Loomer and Mark Levin on one side, and America First firebrands such as Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec on the other. 'We can't have another Iraq,' Bannon warned at a breakfast with reporters hosted Wednesday by The Christian Science Monitor. Earlier today, he was spotted at the White House but Leavitt declined to say what he was doing there. The issue also spilled out onto screens this week, with conservative pundit Tucker Carlson—who accused the president of being 'complicit' in the Middle East conflict—skewering Texas Senator Ted Cruz over his support for regime change. Asked what the president would say to those who voted for his 'America First' doctrine and didn't want the nation involved in another foreign war, Leavitt replied: 'Trust in President Trump.' 'President Trump kept America and the world safe in his first term as president, implementing a 'peace through strength' foreign policy agenda,' she said. 'With respect to Iran, nobody should be surprised by the President's position that Iran absolutely cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. He's been absolutely unequivocal about this.' Trump's announcement was immediately mocked online. One critic on social media described it as 'beyond parody' while another joked: 'He's going to announce it during Infrastructure Week when the healthcare plan comes out.' Leavitt was also quizzed about the issue in the briefing room, with one reporter noting that Trump had regularly given Russia two week deadlines on Ukraine, with no outcome. However, she blamed the Biden administration, saying both were complicated global conflicts that the president had inherited.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Boasts ‘Nobody Knows What I'm Doing' as MAGA Civil War Rages
President Donald Trump has boasted that 'nobody knows what I'm doing' when it comes to Iran as a MAGA civil war rages over the prospect of a U.S. military attack. Speaking with reporters for the first time since meeting with his national security council on Tuesday, the president refused to say whether the U.S. is moving closer to helping Israel strike Iranian nuclear facilities. 'You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question,' Trump said, mockingly. 'Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component, and what time exactly? Sir, sir, would you strike it? Will you please inform us so we can be there and watch? 'I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it; I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Trump's comments come as a MAGA civil war has been brewing for days between pro-Israel war hawks such as Laura Loomer and Mark Levin on one side, and America First firebrands such as Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec on the other. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson also entered the fray last week, calling Trump complicit and suggesting that the administration 'drop Israel [and] let them fight their own wars.' Carlson also clashed with Texas Senator Ted Cruz this week, lashing out over Cruz's support for military intervention in Iran despite his apparent lack of knowledge about the country. While a U.S. attack on Iran could have serious consequences for the region, Trump's rhetoric has shifted considerably in recent days, with the president admitting that his patience is wearing thin on finding a diplomatic solution to stop Iran from building its nuclear arsenal. On Wednesday, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hit back at the president for his 'absurd rhetoric' after Trump demanded Iran's 'complete surrender' and issued an ominous warning on X: 'The US entering this matter (war) is 100% to its own detriment. The damage will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter.' But Trump doubled down on his push for Iran to surrender, telling reporters that Tehran should have negotiated weeks ago. Only now were they rethinking their strategy, he said. 'They even suggested coming to the White House,' he claimed. A U.S. defense official told the Daily Beast it was moving the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group to the Middle East to protect U.S. forces in the region. Vice President JD Vance also posted on X that after showing 'remarkable restraint,' Trump 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.' As the president weighed options, some Democrats on Capitol Hill called for Congress to act. Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution to prevent the U.S. from using military force against Iran without congressional approval while several others backed Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' bill to prevent the use of funds for military force against Iran without congressional authorization. But Democrats were deeply divided over the response to Iran. Senator John Fetterman, who has often bucked his party to fiercely defend Israel, said he would vote against Kaine's resolution. He told reporters he was a 'hell yes' on the U.S. making preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune rejected that the president would need authorization from Congress to strike Iran. 'I think right now the president's within his authorities,' Thune told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. 'He obviously has a lot of authorities as Commander in Chief to respond to incidents that happen around the world.' Thune said if it goes on for a period of time, there would be discussions on what the role of Congress should be and whether it needed to take action. 'I think right now, let's hope and pray for the best outcome,' he said. Senate Foreign Committee Chair Jim Risch emphasized on Tuesday 'this is not our war' and praised the president for threading the needle when it came to Iran. While the House is not in session this week, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie was joined by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to introduce a resolution to prohibit the U.S. from getting involved in the conflict. 'This is not our war,' Massie wrote in a post. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.'
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Pakistan Backs Trump for Nobel Peace Prize He's Long Craved
Pakistan said it will nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, a move that may have as much to do with annoying rival India as it does with building stronger ties to Washington. The recommendation is being made for Trump's 'decisive intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis,' according to a social media post on Saturday by Pakistan's government.
