Law enforcement leaders from across the country were divided Tuesday in their assessment of President Donald Trump’s new executive order promising free private legal protection for police officers accused of wrongdoing on the job, along with more training, access to military equipment and other benefits.
While some called the order a sign that Trump was listening to the political priorities of police union groups in particular, others criticized it as promising redundant changes and said some parts ignore the practical realities of police work in America.
“Don’t be surprised if nothing comes of this,” said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston Police lieutenant who is now a criminology professor at Boston University. “It’s more of a gesture to alleviate any concerns people in law enforcement may have had about whether the administration stands with them,” he said, especially given the president’s pardons of people involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Here’s a look at some of the items in Monday’s executive order, along with context and analysis about the viability and practical implications of each measure.
Legal help for accused officers
The order authorizes Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide free private-sector legal resources to officers who “unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties.”
But officers who are dues-paying members of police unions, like the Fraternal Order of Police and the Police Benevolent Association, already receive legal services when they are charged with wrongdoing on the job.
Attorney General Pam Bondi at the White House, Monday, April 28, 2025, in Washington.
Kalfani Turé, a criminology professor at Widener University, echoed other experts in questioning who will decide what qualifies as an unjust expense. Turé said that even the perception that officers will have expanded immunity could lead to an uptick in deadly force encounters involving police.
“There are clearly alternatives available to officers to resolve certain issues,” Turé said. “So when I saw this yesterday, well, it’s been disappointing.”
The president’s order said Bondi could use “private-sector pro bono assistance” to represent officers on behalf of the administration. The order did not specify which lawyers that would involve, but the White House earlier this year pressured several of the country’s largest private law firms into deals including pro bono assistance — though those deals were reportedly vague on what the administration would seek.
Expanded training and more pay for officers
The order promised efforts to expand training and increase pay for officers — moves experts say police chiefs and sheriffs will welcome. But Nolan pointed out that officer salaries in police agencies covered by unions are usually a function of collective bargaining with agency leaders and union officials, not the federal government.
In addition, the vast majority of the funding for the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the country comes from local and state sources, not the federal government.
However, Nolan said, increased federal funding for local police agencies could eventually lead to better pay.
The federal government has helped pay for police officers before. The 1994 Crime Bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, included grants to help local departments hire more officers — but not to increase pay of existing personnel. It’s unclear if Trump plans to ask Congress to pass funding for a similar effort.
Tougher penalties for crimes against officers
Leaders from two top union groups, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Fraternal Order of Police, have placed congressional bills about crimes against police officers at the top of their priority lists.
One such bill, the “Protect and Serve Act,” would make assaulting a police officer a federal crime and increase penalties for people found to have targeted law enforcement in committing crimes. Another bill, the “Thin Blue Line Act,” would expand the federal death penalty to apply to murder cases involving people convicted of targeting police or first responders.
Both union groups endorsed Trump during his 2024 campaign, and union leaders have publicly praised some of Trump’s moves during his first 100 days in office.
In a news release Tuesday, NAPO President Mick McHale said he applauded Trump for “continuing to have the backs of the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities.”
McHale continued, “It is no exaggeration to say that this Administration has listened carefully to NAPO’s concerns and followed our policy positions as a roadmap.”
When a similar push for tougher penalties came up nearly a decade ago, critics pointed out that state laws in all 50 states already mandate tougher penalties for people convicted of attacking police.
More investment in security and capacity of prisons
Turé points out that President Joe Biden signed several bills intended to increase law enforcement spending, including a trio of measures in 2021 aiming to provide more resources to agencies and calling for local governments to use COVID-19 relief money on law enforcement. Some local governments used COVID relief money to expand jails and corrections centers, amid criticism from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Trump would have to do quite a bit to match what the Biden administration has spent on these various programs,” Turé said.
Nolan said prior administrations have also sought to increase the security and capacity of U.S. prisons, citing the 1994 Crime Bill as an example and calling Trump’s order “old wine in new bottles.”
A review of police reform agreements
The order gives Bondi’s office 60 days to review all consent decrees — the court-monitored mandates for reform in police departments — and out-of-court agreements with agencies, and end any that “unduly impede the performance of law enforcement functions.”
As The Marshall Project reported in March, the Trump administration immediately began backing away from federal civil rights investigations of state and local police, leaving the fate of 12 agencies investigated under the Biden administration in limbo.
Megan Schuller, who worked in the civil rights division of the Department of Justice under the Obama and Biden administrations and the first Trump administration, told The Marshall Project in February that she’d hoped Trump’s stance on consent decrees would mirror his take on the agreements during his first term. On Tuesday, she said it was clear that times had changed.
“I think it’s fair to say that I hoped that there would be a greater respect for our civil rights laws, and for the longstanding mission of the civil rights division,” Schuller said of Trump’s new order.
Schuller now represents a group of mental health advocates and others pushing for a consent decree with Louisville police. She believes that the agreement is still viable, especially because Louisville city officials are in favor of it.
As for the currently active consent decrees, Schuller said that even if Trump’s Justice Department wanted out, the agreements are legally binding and can only be rescinded by a federal judge.
More military-grade equipment and resources for local law enforcement
The order gives the leaders of the Justice and Defense Departments 90 days to increase excess military equipment and assets for local police. But a policy of sending armored trucks, sniper rifles and other weapons of war to local police dates back to the 1990s, and has sent billions in equipment to departments — in some cases with little or no oversight.
Critics have for years argued that such equipment leads many officers to escalate responses, especially to public protests.
Nolan and Turé said leaders of law enforcement agencies would rather have the money to purchase their own equipment than get items like military tanks from the government.
“Some of the surveillance equipment is understandable, although there’s a constitutional question there about one’s right to privacy,” Turé said. “But what I’m more so concerned about is more of the tactical stuff — high-powered rifles and explosives and tanks.”
Another provision in the order also gave the administration 90 days to determine how “military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.” The order didn’t offer specifics.
The Posse Comitatus Act generally bans the U.S. military from conducting domestic law enforcement. But past Trump directives have instructed the military to more directly police the U.S. borders and designated some areas near the border as part of military installations, in what some legal experts are calling an effort to try to get around the past restrictions. Last week the military announced “enhanced authorities” in those border areas, including the ability to “temporarily detain” trespassers.
