\n<\/p>\n
Donald Trump says<\/span> he wants to \u201cunleash\u201d the police.<\/p>\n This week, Trump signed<\/a> an executive order \u201cSTRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA\u2019S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS\u201d (all caps in the original), laying down a host of authoritarian diktats intended to make police officers more brutal, more loyal to him, and less accountable to anyone other than him.<\/p>\n The proclamation is more virtue signaling than policy \u2014 more an expression of Trump\u2019s mood than a serious proposal. And, when it comes to conventional crime, Trump\u2019s mood is right where it\u2019s always been<\/a>: fearful, demagogic, and perpetually stuck in 1988.<\/p>\n The proclamation is more an expression of Trump\u2019s mood than a serious proposal.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The thing that ties it all together is a word Trump uses often \u2014 \u201cunleash\u201d \u2014 and it\u2019s worth delving into. The literal definition is to remove from a restraint. In the context of law enforcement, it conjures images of cops siccing police dogs on suspects or protesters. Metaphorically, we tend to associate the word with starker imagery. We unleash<\/em> fury, wrath, and retribution. Trump wants to project both.<\/p>\n As for the executive order itself, it is heavy on bluster and short on details, like most of Trump\u2019s orders.<\/p>\n Some of the measures are nonsensical, like \u201cindemnifying\u201d police from damages. (They\u2019re already indemnified by taxpayers in more than 99.9 percent<\/a> of such cases.) For others, it isn\u2019t clear if he\u2019s referring to federal or state and local police. Trump provides no funding for his demands.<\/p>\n Some would violate the law, such as charging progressive prosecutors for failing to prosecute some crimes to Trump\u2019s satisfaction. Others, like directing law firms to do pro bono work defending cops accused of wrongdoing, are unconstitutional on their own \u2014 not to mention that they build on other directives from Trump that courts are also likely to find unconstitutional. Still others would require approval from Congress.<\/p>\n How much of this agenda is actually feasible depends on whether Trump is willing to push through these barriers, and whether the federal courts<\/a> are willing to stop him<\/a>. That, however, is true with or without an executive order.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n During his run in presidential politics, Trump has praised<\/a> and encouraged<\/a> police brutality. He has applauded<\/a> violent crackdowns on protests, especially by authoritarian regimes<\/a>.<\/p>\n He believes in projecting strength, and believes strong leaders demonstrate strength with violence. This is why he has often suggested that police officers will attack his enemies<\/a> if called upon, and why the Capitol Police who defended Congress from his supporters received so much of his wrath.<\/p>\n Yet you can\u2019t unleash something that has never been restrained in the first place. And in the U.S., the police have never been restrained.<\/p>\n Last month, an Oklahoma City news station<\/a> reported that a federal team of law enforcement officers had battered down the door of a Latino woman and her three daughters. The family was subjected to a terrifying raid, in which agents held them at gunpoint, forced them to stand in the rain, then rifled through their home.<\/p>\n The agents were looking for undocumented immigrants. Everyone in the home was a U.S. citizen. The man they were looking for had moved out months earlier.<\/p>\n If it had all stopped there, that would have been bad enough. This was a violent, volatile raid over an alleged immigration violation \u2014 an extraordinarily disproportionate use of force. After learning of their mistake, however, the agents weren\u2019t apologetic or contrite. Instead, they confiscated the family\u2019s computers, cellphones, and an undisclosed amount of cash.<\/p>\n The agents didn\u2019t identify themselves or which agency they were with, and they left no contact information so the women could file a complaint or, at the very least, retrieve their property. <\/p>\n According to the victim, one officer told her as they left, \u201cI know it was a little rough this morning.\u201d After several days, the Department of Homeland Security finally acknowledged a mistake.<\/p>\n This raid followed Trump\u2019s executive order, but it\u2019s part of a much longer pattern of hyper-aggressive law enforcement. These certainly weren\u2019t the actions of law officers who felt restrained. <\/p>\n And why would they? Trump and his subordinates have made clear that one clear objective of his immigration policy<\/a> is to inflict pain<\/a>. It isn\u2019t just about removing undocumented people, it\u2019s about making people who do come suffer as much as possible to deter others.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
What Leash?<\/h2>\n