By Kanya Bennett
President Trump continues to be a man of his word in all the wrong ways.
Today the president made good on his campaign promise to the Fraternal Order of Police to rescind Executive Order 13688 and put thousands of bayonets and hundreds of grenade launchers from the U.S. military back in the hands of police. It also leaves law enforcement’s federally provided drones, explosives, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles without oversight.
The result? Weapons of war will again be used to police our communities, no questions asked. Your town could be the next Ferguson or Fallujah.
When President Obama issued the executive order, which charged a federal agency working group with implementing oversight and protocols around the weapons of war given to local law enforcement agencies, he did so in response to calls from many Americans that their communities not be treated like war zones. Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars expressed horror that they, while on active duty overseas, were less heavily armed than the local police in Ferguson. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said, “The idea that state and local police departments need tactical 
vehicles and MRAPs with gun turrets is excessive.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) described the need to differentiate a “police response and a military response.”
Clearly, the new president disagrees with members of his own party, confusing Missouri with Mosul. In a candidate questionnaire from the Fraternal Order of Police, then-Republican nominee Trump said of the Department of Defense program that distributes these weapons that “[t]he 1033 program is an excellent program that enhances community safety” and that he would “rescind the current executive order.” In making its case for the 1033 program and others, the FOP found “offensive” the notion “that the equipment could be misapplied” and should therefore be subjected to federal oversight.
The reversal of E.O. 13688 dismantles this necessary oversight. E.O. 13688 created an interagency working group that included the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security — the primary federal providers of military weapons and equipment to law enforcement. At minimum, the working group ensured that the agencies doling out these military-grade weapons were talking to one another, but it also established necessary policies, including the prohibition on bayonets and grenade launchers.
But even with federal officials now talking, we know the 1033 program is still plagued by problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently disguised itself as a federal law enforcement agency and received 1033 military ware, no questions asked.
Without interagency coordination, it is now possible that the Department of Defense could provide an MRAP to a police department subjected to Department of Justice complaints of police misconduct — that is, if this administration even continues to investigate systemic police misconduct.
Even with the interagency working group’s oversight since January 2015, we continue to see unwarranted police militarization post-Ferguson. Just look at law enforcement’s response at Standing Rock, where armored vehicles, automatic rifles, concussion grenades, sound cannons, and water cannons were used against peaceful protestors. Consider Baton Rouge, where those organizing around the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling were met with militarization and excessive force. And we still have SWAT teams detonating flash-bang grenades near a 9-month-old when executing home searches for drugs. Do you remember Baby Bou Bou?
Many in law enforcement fail to see how military-grade weapons in America’s communities have negative consequences.
So, what’s next? There are three immediate responses needed to the rescission of the executive order:
Communities must call out the federal government for instigating police militarization.
Congress must continue their call for a suspension of the 1033 program and enact the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act to eliminate the federal gifting of MRAPs and grenades to police once and for all.
State and local communities must take control over the weapons of war coming to their towns, just as we are asking them to take control of surveillance.
On Inauguration Day, the White House published an issue brief reminding us that “[t]he Trump Administration will be a law and order administration.” The brief states that “[t]he dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and promises to “end it.” It pledges “more community engagement” and “more effective policing.”
Given today’s executive action, just how this administration plans to reconcile these goals is not clear. We know that militarized policing is not “effective policing,” as it does not deescalate, reduce bias, or improve police-community relations. And we hope this administration does not think that treating neighborhoods like war zones is an effective way to create “more community engagement.”
If the new president wants to be the president of “all Americans,” he must listen to the majority of Americans who have said they do not want weapons of wars in their communities.
Kanya Bennett is Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office
For those of you who believe that militarization of the police is an overblown fear, I would remind everyone of the events of May 4, 1970 at Kent State in which students including some not even involved in the protest were killed. These were real military interfacing with students on a campus, not the local police, presumably less well trained in military weaponry and tactics. The pepper spray incident here on UCD campus is a demonstration that misuse of equipment for crowd control can and does occur. With militarization, we run the risk of entirely preventable repeats of the Kent State type of tragedy.
I believe your interpretation of history is wrong… had the Ohio National Guard been trained in Police methods, maybe it would not have occurred… the bricks/bottles thrown by the students (also potentially lethal weapons) before a shot was fired, also played a part.
http://www.kentstate1970.org/timeline/may4th1970
Although perhaps a somewhat biased account, I, having read it, believe it is basically fair and accurate… it is clear that it was not simply a matter of ‘militarization’ of the police… not analogous at all…
Howard
I am well aware that the circumstances were different in the Kent State shooting which is why I also cited the pepper spray incident here on campus as what could go wrong when police departments find themselves in possession of equipment which they are ill trained and equipped to use. I believe that both analogies are useful as illustrations of the hazards of using inappropriate weaponry on civilian populations.
There were credible bomb threats @ Kent State… not analogous…
Lt(?) Pike,a UCD officer was likely a madman or sociopath… should we ban hammers? A Dr Corbett, as I recall, was attacked/murdered @ UCMC. Pepper spray was less lethal than a hammer. You have to remember that Pike was up-close, and no threats to him… a sicko…
The ‘weapons’ are not the issue… the people wielding them are… my diagnosis… respect if you disagree…
Although I have little truck with the NRA (but I strongly respect their hunter/gun safety programs), weapons (usually, just the bullets, not the weapon itself) don’t kill people… people do…
If you mean the ‘militarization’ by “attitudes”, I completely agree… the “tools” are way secondary… IMHO
There is something to be said about “show of force” vs use of force… had the a-hole in VA been assured he’d be shot dead instantly if he plowed his car into the crowd… who knows…
He’s a lucky bastard… lives,uninjured…
Howard what about the research I posted a few months that shows police misconduct follows militiarization?
Howard
We are probably quite close in our position. The clear difference that I see is that your are using the “bad apple” argument with regard to Sgt. Pike. While I agree that he was a “bad apple” that does not mean that your harvest should not be stored in the most appropriate barrel. While tools themselves are not responsible for the actions of their owners, they certainly can create the possibility for more or less harm. Also, I do not believe that Sgt. Pike is the only individual that through malice or more likely fear or confusion might misuse the inappropriate weapon that he has been issued. True prevention should address both the appropriateness of the weapon and the individual so armed.
The MRAP is still a bad idea and whether or not it gets deployed in the future here remains a local political decision. Each locality has to decide what kind of community they want to have and it’s probable some will only learn the hard way.