When former President Donald Trump secured a second term in the Oval Office, questions immediately arose about how his administration would handle ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight of local police departments, including in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville has been under a federal consent decree since December 2024, following an investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) that identified areas for improvements due to unconstitutional policing practices.

Similarly to Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD), LMPD’s decree was pushed to finalization in the last few weeks of the Biden administration—likely as a last ditch effort for law enforcement policy before the looming administration change. However, a federal judge’s hesitancy to immediately sign the decree has already been a cog in its full fledged implementation. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton did concede that prior federal court rulings encouraged him toward approving the agreement, but he repeatedly asked whether some sort of other “less intrusive” arrangement could also get LMPD to comply with federal law. 

Concerns have emerged over whether Trump’s second administration will attempt to scale back consent decrees, potentially impacting police reform efforts in cities like Louisville. How the new administration approaches the DOJ’s role in police accountability will have lasting effects on both officers and the communities they serve.

Understanding Consent Decrees

A consent decree is a legally binding agreement between the DOJ and a local police department, typically used after federal investigations uncover systemic misconduct or constitutional violations. The goal is to ensure that police practices comply with constitutional standards while maintaining public trust and officer morale.

Louisville’s consent decree followed a DOJ report that identified areas for improvement within LMPD, including use-of-force policies, officer training related to warrants, protests, and racial bias, and overall transparency in disciplinary actions. The 242 page decree mandates reforms such as:

• Enhancing use-of-force policies to ensure constitutional policing.
• Expanding officer training programs to improve interactions with all demographic communities.
• Increasing departmental transparency in officer’s disciplinary actions to build public trust.
• Establishing independent oversight to ensure accountability while respecting officers’ rights.

With federal enforcement in place, LMPD has been working toward these goals under court supervision. However, Trump’s second term could shift how these reforms are managed.

The Trump Administration’s Stance on Police Reform

During his first term, President Trump’s DOJ, under Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and William Barr, expressed their views on a hands-off approach to federal oversight of police departments. Sessions issued a memo in 2018 expressing concerns that consent decrees imposed undue burdens on officers, potentially limiting their ability to effectively combat crime.

Rather than prioritizing structural reform through federal mandates, the Trump administration framed its approach as one of allowing local leadership to take the lead in accountability efforts. However, the irony lies in the fact that the new Trump administration seems to be counteracting some of its previous positions. For instance, after the Senate failed to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in 2021—an effort to implement a bipartisan set of law enforcement reforms—the Biden administration turned to executive orders to enact much of the proposed legislation. One major initiative was the creation of the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. Currently, that website is inaccessible as the new administration works to dismantle it, among many other former administration programs and various federal agencies.

What’s intriguing is that, while the new Trump administration’s federal purge mindset seems to oppose such a database, it actually proposed an incredibly similar program during its first term.It just never happened. In fact, Trump’s orders aimed at creating a database which would also have made instances of misconduct and excessive force public. Something not even featured on the Biden database. Given this, the shift away from this initiative under Biden raises a compelling question: What changed?

Could Louisville’s Consent Decree Be Modified?

Although consent decrees are court-enforced, the DOJ plays a crucial role in their implementation. Under Trump’s new administration, with newly approved Attorney General Pam Bondi, several potential actions could influence Louisville’s agreement:

1. DOJ Re-Evaluation and Adjustments

The DOJ may seek to reassess consent decrees including Louisville’s, potentially arguing that certain mandates are overly restrictive or unnecessary. This could result in attempts to modify or scale back specific provisions, potentially altering the pace or scope of the department’s reform efforts.

2. A Shift Toward Local Oversight

Trump’s administration could push for more localized control over police reform, limiting the DOJ’s role in direct oversight – possibly including no longer pursuing federal investigations into departments or not forming consent decrees at all. While some argue this approach gives departments greater autonomy, others worry it could weaken enforcement mechanisms designed to ensure accountability.

3. Decreased Enforcement of Consent Decrees

Even if the consent decrees remain in place, a DOJ that deprioritizes enforcement could reduce federal pressure on cities to comply with reforms. Without strong federal backing, implementation could slow or halt completely.

The Local Response: Will Louisville Continue Reforms?

While the federal government has significant influence over Louisville’s consent decree, local officials still play a key role in shaping the future of the reform. Mayor Craig Greenberg publicly stated that Louisville remains committed to implementing responsible and fair policing reforms that respect both constitutional rights and the work of law enforcement, “regardless of who is President.” In the past though, Greenberg has sided with his city’s law enforcement community, stating there are things within the [DOJ] report that the city contests.

New LMPD Police Chief Paul Humphrey also seems to support the decree and stated he remains committed to ensuring departmental reform, saying strides have already been taken to meet the reform initiatives. The Greenberg administration, which has seen a revolving door of LMPD Chiefs, has long emphasized the need for transparency and officer training to ensure that policing in Louisville remains both effective and accountable, regardless of federal changes.

Community and Law Enforcement Perspectives

Local advocacy groups, including law enforcement organizations and civil rights groups, will play a critical role in shaping the future of the decree, as ongoing discussions determine how best to balance police accountability with effective public safety measures. Many officers have expressed their dedication to constitutional policing, emphasizing their commitment to serving the community while also advocating for policies that ensure they are not unfairly constrained in their ability to respond to crime and protect residents.

At the same time, community organizations, activists, and members of metro government who have long fought for reform remain wary of any federal rollback. Many of these groups view the decree as a crucial mechanism for fostering transparency, accountability, and public trust—elements they argue are necessary to reconnecting the community to law enforcement.

Despite initial optimism, some key figures now fear that momentum is slipping. “I have been one of the most optimistic people that this [police reform] was going to happen. I no longer have that optimism,” said Inspector General Ed Harness, reflecting concerns that political shifts, legal challenges, or federal resistance could weaken reforms.

The ongoing debate underscores the complexity of police reform, where competing interests—officer safety, community trust, public policy, and federal oversight—must be carefully navigated. Moving forward, stakeholders on all sides will likely continue to push for their respective visions of what policing should look like, setting the stage for further discussions on accountability, procedural justice, and the role of law enforcement in modern society.

Independent Oversight Board

Following controversial findings, Louisville established an independent police oversight board tasked with monitoring the LMPD’s progress. The Civilian Review and Accountability Board now oversees the work of the Inspector General’s Office, which has the authority to investigate complaints of alleged incidents of improper conduct by any members of the department. Even if the federal government withdraws some oversight, this local board could continue to help ensure that reforms enhance both accountability and effective policing.

Broader Implications for National Police Reform

Louisville is not the only city under a consent decree. Departments in places like Minneapolis, Chicago, and New Orleans are also undergoing federally mandated reforms. If Trump’s DOJ shifts its approach to consent decrees, it could lead to a broader movement that reexamines the balance between federal oversight and local control over law enforcement initiatives.

While supporters of police reform argue that consent decrees are essential for improving trust and accountability, critics argue that some of these measures can impose excessive restrictions that hinder officers’ ability to combat crime effectively. Striking a balance between accountability and effective policing will be a key consideration in the coming years.

Conclusion

Trump’s re-election introduces potential changes to how the federal government approaches police oversight, with Louisville’s consent decree potentially facing stark re-evaluation. While the city has pledged to continue responsible reforms, shifts in DOJ policy could influence how these efforts are implemented and maintained long term.

As Louisville moves forward, ensuring a balance between constitutional policing and supporting the tireless work of law enforcement officers will be essential. Regardless of federal involvement, the commitment to fair and effective policing remains a priority for many in the city, setting the stage for a continued discussion on best practices in law enforcement. Ultimately, the future of Louisville’s police reform will depend not only on federal policy but also on the will of local leaders, law enforcement officers, and the community itself.