The US cities left behind as Trump ends key police accountability reforms
Louisville metro police department (LMPD) is one department that saw its justice department investigation ended, despite its high-profile police controversies. In March 2020, LMPD officers shot and killed Breonna Taylor, a 27-year-old emergency room technician, as she slept in bed with her boyfriend. Police forcibly entered Taylor's home using a 'no-knock' warrant, firing 32 bullets into Taylor's home. Taylor's death sparked international outcry as the Black Lives Matter protests spread across the world.
Since 2012, LMPD has also come under scrutiny for its Violent Incident Prevention, Enforcement and Response Unit. Officers, who often wear plainclothes, were found to routinely violate the civil rights of Black and brown residents; the unit was dissolved in 2015. Following Taylor's death, the justice department launched an investigation into LMPD, determining in 2023 that it had '[engaged] in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law', including excessive force, unlawful searches and detentions, discriminating against Black people in their enforcement.
Louisville officials pledged to carry out reforms in response to the justice department's findings. A consent decree that was negotiated was still awaiting approval from a judge. But on 21 May, the Trump administration rolled back previous agreements and investigations to curb police abuse in Louisville and nearly two dozen other cities in the US.
'Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division's failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees,' said Harmeet K Dhillon, the head of the justice department's civil rights division, in an announcement.
For community activists in affected cities, the justice department's rollback on police reform doesn't entirely come as a shock. Donald Trump established himself as a 'law and order' candidate during the 2024 presidential election and his administration previously signaled that they would end police reform progress in April. Still, the justice department's rollback of reforms is a significant breakdown in progress towards ending police abuses. 'It's very disappointing that the Trump administration is having his DOJ abdicate their statutory authority to investigate police departments and other municipalities under pattern and practice allegations and to make sure that everyone's civil rights are being enforced,' said Kungu Njuguna, a policy strategist at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky.
The justice department also announced that it would drop civil rights investigations looking into the conduct of several embattled law enforcement agencies including those in Phoenix, Arizona; Trenton, New Jersey; and Mount Vernon, New York. The agency has also ended a consent decree in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Consent decrees have long been used as a federal intervention into police departments: their implementation began with the passage of the 1994 crime bill, which included a small number of accountability measures for law enforcement. Those reforms were sparked by Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King in 1991 and protests that came after.
The decrees historically have varied in effectiveness. While legally binding, different administrations have weakened them based on their own partisan affiliation. But for community members, consent decrees and broader investigations into misconduct can represent a positive change forward. In Trenton, the justice department's oversight offered a 'glimmer' for residents, said Austin Edward, president of the NAACP Trenton chapter. 'For the first time, having the federal government actually come in and say: 'Something is going wrong here in Trenton,' and finally listening to what the people have been saying for a long time? That's where that hope lies,' he said. 'A lot of people are very disappointed with the fact that we don't have any other recourse at the moment.'
Despite the changes in federal oversight, some cities have already committed to passing reform. The Louisville mayor Craig Greenberg and the city's police chief Paul Humphrey promised to carry out the recommended changes, even without the consent decree. Trenton officials also promised to continue enacting reforms. (In 2024, a justice department investigation found that the Trenton police department engaged in a pattern of misconduct against city residents after police shot and paralyzed an unarmed Black man during a traffic stop.)
'We are moving ahead rapidly to continue implementing police reform that ensures constitutional policing while providing transparency and accountability to the public,' said Greenberg in a presser about the DOJ changes. 'I made a promise to our community, and we are keeping that promise.'
Njuguna said that the ACLU is still examining what exact reforms Louisville officials are planning to implement and how much they differ from the justice department's former recommendations. But critics have said it is unclear if city officials can be trusted to hold themselves accountable and implement the entirety of the justice department's previous recommendations. Greenberg himself publicly contested the justice department's findings on the LMPD in January 2025, later clarifying that he would accept the report.
'We're kind of in a low to zero environment of trust with the community and LMPD,' said Njuguna. 'Without that independent oversight from the federal government, I think it's hard for some people to believe that LMPD is capable of policing its own.'
In the meantime, activists and city officials have launched campaigns to bring attention to step backs in police reform. The People's Consent Decree, a list of demands for LMPD originally launched in 2024, has been gaining additional attention as the justice department ends their finding. The decree, which outlines demands for police accountability, was a collaborative effort between Louisville advocacy groups with the goal of having the city council adopt the measure. Involved groups, said Njuguna, are coming together to help educate the public on what a consent decree is and what rollbacks on progress are in effect. They hope to eventually see the plan implemented at a citywide level.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
Europe reacts with mix of relief and concern to US trade deal
BRUSSELS, July 28 (Reuters) - European governments and companies reacted with both relief and concern on Monday to the framework trade deal struck with U.S. President Donald Trump, acknowledging what was seen as an unbalanced deal but one that avoided a deeper trade war. The agreement, announced on Sunday between two economies that account for almost a third of global trade, will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods - half the threatened rate but much more than what Europeans hoped for. Many of the specifics of the deal were not immediately known, however. "As we await full details of the new EU–U.S. trade agreement, one thing is clear: this is a moment of relief but not of celebration," Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever wrote on X. "Tariffs will increase in several areas and some key questions remain unresolved." Trump said the deal, including an investment pledge topping the $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters. It will bring clarity for European makers of cars, planes and chemicals. But the EU had initially hoped for a zero-for-zero tariff deal. And the 15% baseline tariff, while an improvement on the threatened rate of 30%, compares to an average U.S. import tariff rate of around 2.5% last year before Trump's return to the White House. European Commission chief Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, told reporters on Sunday that it was "the best we could get". European stocks opened up on Monday, with the STOXX 600 at a four-month high and all other major bourses also in the green. Tech and healthcare stocks led the way. "The 15% rate is better than the market was fearing," said Jefferies economist Mohit Kumar. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. French government ministers said on Monday that the deal had some merits - such as exemptions they hoped to see for some key French business sectors such as spirits - but was nevertheless not balanced. Industry minister Marc Ferracci stressed more talks - potentially lasting weeks or months - would be needed before the deal could be formally concluded. "This is not the end of the story," he told RTL radio. European companies, meanwhile, were left wondering whether to cheer or lament the accord. "Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm," said Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association VCI. "Further escalation has been avoided. Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides. European exports are losing competitiveness. U.S. customers are paying the tariffs," he said. Stellantis ( opens new tab shares were up 3.5% and car parts maker Valeo ( opens new tab jumped 4.7% while German pharma group Merck KGaA ( opens new tab rose 2.9%, in a sign of relief for those sectors. Among the many questions that remain to be answered, however, is how the EU's promise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and steeply increase energy purchases can be turned into reality. It was not immediately clear if specific pledges of increased investments were made or whether the details still must be hammered out. And while the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases over the next three years, including oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel, the U.S. will struggle to produce enough to meet that demand. While U.S. LNG production capacity is due to almost double over the next four years it will still not be enough to ramp up supplies to Europe, and oil production is expected to be lower than previously forecast this year. Despite the lingering unknowns, analysts stressed the deal still helped decrease uncertainty. Oil prices rose on Monday, as did the euro. "Now that there is more clarity, you would think that not only in the United States, but around the globe, there will be a little bit more willingness to look at investment, to look at expansions, and to look at where the opportunities are," said Rodrigo Catril, senior currency strategist at National Australia Bank.
Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: US Democrats, Republicans plan bills to pressure China as Trump pushes trade
WASHINGTON, July 28 (Reuters) - U.S. senators from both major parties plan to introduce bills this week targeting China over its treatment of minority groups, dissidents and Taiwan, emphasizing security and human rights as President Donald Trump focuses on trade with Beijing. The three bills, seen by Reuters ahead of their introduction, have Democratic and Republican sponsors, a departure from the fierce partisanship dividing Washington. Trump's push to reach economic agreements between the world's two biggest economies has strong support in Congress, especially from his fellow Republicans, but has prompted some China hawks to worry that the U.S. government is de-emphasizing security issues. "It does appear that President Trump is keen to negotiate some kind of deal with China, and gaps are opening between his approach to China and the approaches of some members of his team, as well as with Congress, which overall has been quite hawkish on China," said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The desire for a hard line on China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the perennially divided Congress, even as many lawmakers support Trump's efforts to rebalance the bilateral trade relationship. "The United States cannot afford to be weak in the face of the People's Republic of China and its aggression around the world," said Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a lead sponsor of all three bills. "No matter who is in the White House, America's values of freedom and human rights must remain at the heart of a clear and principled vision that guides our leadership on the global stage," Merkley said in a statement. White House officials have said that Trump remains fully committed to Asia-Pacific security issues as he pursues his trade agenda and a good personal relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. One bill, co-sponsored by Republican John Cornyn of Texas, would deny entry into the United States of current or former Chinese government officials who were deemed to have engaged in the forced repatriation of members of China's Uyghur minority. Human rights groups accuse China of widespread abuses of Uyghurs, a mainly Muslim ethnic minority numbering about 10 million in its northwestern region of Xinjiang. Beijing denies any abuses. Another, co-sponsored by Republican John Curtis of Utah, aims to help Taiwan as the island faces increasing pressure from China. It would support countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that maintain official diplomatic relations with Taiwan and would take other steps to deepen coordination with Taipei. China claims the democratically governed island as its own and has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Beijing has stepped up military and political pressure against the island in recent years. A third bill, co-sponsored by Republican Dan Sullivan of Alaska, seeks to combat "transnational repression" - efforts by any foreign government to reach beyond its own borders to intimidate, harass or harm dissidents, journalists or activists. Facing Trump's August 12 deadline, top U.S. and Chinese economic officials will meet in Stockholm on Monday to try to tackle their longstanding disputes, hoping to extend a truce by three months and keep sharply higher tariffs at bay. Trump "cares about opening foreign markets to American trade, and that's what he's always cared about. And that is going to run counter to a lot of national security imperatives," said Michael Sobolik, who specializes in U.S.-China relations at the Hudson Institute. Democrats and some of Trump's fellow Republicans raised concerns about the announcement this month that Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab will resume sales of its H20 artificial intelligence chips to China, days after its CEO met with Trump. This reversed an AI restriction imposed in April that was designed to keep the most advanced AI chips out of Chinese hands.
The Guardian
4 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Grok's behavior isn't surprising – but we needn't settle for Musk's vision of the future
Elon Musk's chatbot Grok went on a hateful tirade earlier this month. The AI-powered account praised Hitler and posted a series of antisemitic comments over X, the digital platform also owned by Musk. The company's CEO, Linda Yaccarino, resigned the next day – though it's unclear whether her exit was directly related to the bot's rant. Posting on X, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Grok's behavior was 'irresponsible, dangerous and antisemitic'. xAI and the Grok account on X apologized for the incident, but days later released two chatbot 'companions', including an NSFW anime avatar available to children and a red panda character built to issue crude insults. Musk, meanwhile, chalked Grok's behavior up to it being 'too eager to please' and to respond to user generated prompts. He said that the issue had been fixed. US politicians and platform advertisers said little, unlike past responses to similar incidents on X. Their silence and Musk's downplaying of the event speak louder than if we had heard significant public denouncements of the chatbot's actions from the powers that be. The relative quiet at the top is illustrative of two things. First, Grok's behavior is not surprising. At this point, it's predictable. Second, little about Grok, X, or xAI is likely to change in the short-term. Grok sharing hateful content is Grok working precisely as it was designed to. Before the inflammatory chatbot was 'born' and launched on X in late 2023, Musk spoke about the need for AI alternatives to ChatGPT, which he deemed too politically correct. He has consistently referred to his anti-woke AI as 'TruthGPT'. Grok was deliberately built to be provocative – and 'to tell it like it is'. Grok is a fitting representation of the current culture of X and, more broadly, of social media and those at its reins. In the years since Musk purchased the internet platform, originally named Twitter, many have pointed out that it has devolved into a space rife with 'racism, misogyny, and lies'. It's also full of spam and scams. Shortly after the platform changed names and hands, most of the people behind content moderation and platform trust and safety were unceremoniously fired. Extremists and conspiracy theorists who had been deplatformed from Twitter were reinstated on X. In late 2024, the social media organization's first transparency report in years revealed serious problems with this new laissez-faire approach, including unsettling new instances of child exploitation. According to Musk, Grok was built to seek and reveal truths beyond the supposedly sanitized content seen on competing generative AI systems or prior social media platforms. But Grok what actually does is tell the 'truth' of the current hands-off, malignant, version of X, and of other social media platforms and tech leadership. Since Musk's acquisition of X – and the deregulation of content that followed – other platforms have followed suit. These shifts follow an executive order and other moves from the Trump administration aimed at curtailing 'censorship' through digital content moderation and, seemingly, the collaborative study of social media propaganda. Meanwhile, social media and AI companies are getting more cozy with Washington: xAI just signed a $200m contract with the Pentagon to provide 'Grok for government'. In past research, I've found that billionaires' and global political leaders' claims about striking down digital media censorship and preserving free speech online are often suspect at best. At worst, and closer to what I've encountered in my analyses, such claims are self-serving for those in power. These figures not only own a significant stake in the digital information environment; they have also purposefully and steadily cultivated the online space to be favorable to their goals and ideas. They seek to artificially control what trends, or what people see as popular behavior, and to make such statements or actions acceptable. But an online world where hate, spam, and scams run rampant is only one version of what the internet and digital media technology can be. The opposite, as Musk and others in Silicon Valley and Washington have rightfully pointed out, is an overtly censored online space. China's internet and social media platforms, for instance, have been tightly controlled by the government since the outset. We do not have to accept either extreme. Empirical research and lessons from recent history show us that we can indeed have healthier, more connective, communication tools. We can have social media platforms that are sensibly and systematically moderated from both the top down and bottom up. But to have such spaces we must demand better, more thoughtful, content moderation and tool design from technologists and policy makers. We must also break big tech's stranglehold on innovation in the social media space. Too much power online is consolidated in the hands of too few companies and individuals. We need new digital platforms that genuinely center human rights, pluralism, and democratic discourse and better policies that allow for such an experience. Samuel Woolley is the author Manufacturing Consensus: Understanding Propaganda in the Era of Automation and Anonymity and co-author of Bots. He is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh
