Follow us on social

Shelton-ct-scaled

Why is military surplus still pouring into American communities?

Despite Biden's promises, $34 million worth of equipment has been transferred from the DoD to local law enforcement this year.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

Does your local police department really need access to military-grade weapons, like grenade launchers, assault rifles, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles? Probably not. But because of the federal 1033 program that enables the military to transfer weapons and equipment directly to local authorities, police departments across the nation have obtained over 300,000 items in the last 24 years — with little government oversight. 

The program’s consequences are dire, with increased police shootings and decreased trust in local law enforcement. Yet, according to researcher Stephen Semler of the Security Policy Reform Institute*, $34 million worth of equipment has already been transferred from the Pentagon to local law enforcement this year. President Biden could put a stop to all this, but, despite campaign promises to end police militarization, he has thus far chosen not to. 

This inaction has sparked two dozen House Democrats, led by Georgia Representative Hank Johnson, to issue a letter to Biden, calling on him to ban military grade weapons transfers to local law enforcement. 

The 1033 program started in 1997 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. And since then, it has become quite a hot commodity for local police departments looking to arm their officers for… battle? And therein lies the central problem: The role of local police is not military, but this program treats police officers like soldiers, despite their lack of appropriate equipment training. When trained military members access this gear for fighting wars and terrorism, that’s one thing. But police simply don’t receive the same training as soldiers. And despite this problem, the program continues to grow, even in 2021.

One in three police departments in the United States have used the program to obtain military gear, according to the Institute for Transparent Policing. About $1.7 billion worth of military gear has been transferred through the program thus far. And once the gear is actually transferred out of the federal government's hands, oversight stops. 

The ultimate solution is for Biden to abolish the 1033 program through an executive order. After all, during his campaign he said he supported a proposal “to stop transferring weapons of war to police forces.” That’s a good idea for a lot of reasons. Police militarization doesn’t make the public safer and hasn’t proven to actually reduce crime. If anything, it hurts police reputation and puts the public more at risk of police violence.

One study found “a positive and statistically significant relationship between 1033 transfers and fatalities from officer-involved shootings across all models.” Capping violence is reason enough to put a stop to the program. But even if it’s not completely abolished, it needs to at least be regulated.

So why hasn’t Biden done this already? 

Semler argues that he is retreating due to the political pressure exerted by the powerful police unions that have been enthusiastic supporters of the program. So, rather than siding with the safety of the American people, the 1033 program may not be touched at the federal level. This would be disappointing, especially after the summer of 2020 where police used excessive military gear to respond to protests and riots across the country. But there’s still room for state and local governments to act to ensure their local law enforcement is kept in check.

Local and state governments aren’t always made aware of the military gear their police departments are obtaining. Even if they do know, most states haven’t taken steps to regulate what is approved for use or not — it’s instead left up to the internal leadership of the police department. 

For the sake of transparency and accountability, departments should gain local government approval before accepting any weapons or equipment from the 1033 program. This gives the opportunity for law enforcement to justify their request and demonstrate why they have a legitimate need for the equipment. It also allows the public a chance to express their concerns about the risks posed by police militarization. In the end, local governments can weigh the arguments of both sides and make an informed decision through a democratic process.

Equipping local law enforcement with military gear correlates with higher fatalities, meaning by continuing this program, Americans are at higher risk of police violence. And it fails to make communities any safer. Semler adds that Biden could wait for Congress to abolish the federal code that enables the 1033 program, which they will have to do in order to put a permanent end to the program. But in the meantime, he can use his executive power to put an immediate suspension to 1033 program transfers. If he doesn’t, he’s choosing to enable more violence, and turn a blind eye to the consequences of something he has complete power to change. It’s time for Biden to prove he is more than just talk when it comes to positive criminal justice reform. This is the perfect way to do it.

*Editor's Note: this story has been updated to emphasize the proper attribution of research data used in the article.


Shelton, CT, February 1, 2018: SWAT team operating at a barricaded man/standoff incident. (Shutterstock/Keith Muratori)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.