Police Training and Independent Review

Summary#

The Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026 would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to let the U.S. Attorney General make one-year grants to states. To qualify, a state would have to require specified annual police training and have a law requiring independent handling of certain deadly-force cases. The bill’s stated goal is to fund training and encourage independent investigation and prosecution; it does not require every state to adopt these rules.

  • States seeking grants would have to require all law-enforcement officers and police-academy enrollees to complete an initial training session of at least 8 hours and at least 4 hours each year after that.
  • The training would have to cover bias, cultural diversity, interactions with people with disabilities or mental illness, crisis intervention and de-escalation. It would include scenarios, and participants would have to demonstrate proficiency in scenario-based tests.
  • A state would have to certify training completion to the U.S. Attorney General. Its attorney general would verify compliance, and the Justice Department Inspector General would audit an appropriate number of grant-receiving states.
  • To qualify, a state would also need a law in effect requiring independent handling of criminal matters involving an officer’s use of deadly force that caused death or injury. The bill lists several possible methods, including an independent prosecutor, a state attorney general, or certain agency or civilian review arrangements.
  • The Attorney General may award grants for one fiscal year at a time. The bill does not set grant amounts or require that grants be awarded.

What it means for you#

  • State governments: A state would not have to adopt the requirements, but it would need to meet them to qualify for these grants. Training compliance is generally due within 240 days after enactment; the Attorney General may allow up to 120 more days for a state making good-faith efforts.
  • Police officers and academy enrollees: In a state seeking grant eligibility, state rules would have to require the specified training and proficiency tests. The bill does not itself set a process for enrolling, testing, appeals or consequences for an individual who does not pass.
  • People affected by police use of deadly force: In a state seeking grants, the required independent-handling law would apply to criminal matters where an officer’s use of deadly force in the course of duty caused a death or injury. The bill does not create a federal investigation or prosecution process for those cases.
  • The public: The bill does not directly change individual rights, police powers to use force, or criminal penalties. It is not law; it has been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Money#

No grant amount, total cost, or funding source is specified in the available material.

  • The bill authorizes the Attorney General to make grants, but does not require awards or provide an appropriation or grant formula.
  • States may face costs to provide and verify training and establish or operate the required independent-case procedures; no estimates are given.
  • The Justice Department Inspector General must audit an appropriate number of grant-receiving states, but the bill gives no estimate of audit costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how grants would be allocated, how much each state could receive, or whether the grants would cover state costs.
  • It does not define what makes an investigation or prosecution “independent” beyond listing possible methods. Those methods may differ in how investigations and prosecution are handled.
  • The bill does not specify how training providers, scenario tests, or proficiency standards would be set.
  • The grant rules use prior-year compliance to determine eligibility, but the timing and effect of the training-compliance exceptions are not fully clear.
  • The bill does not explain how these requirements would interact with state laws or programs already in place.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to encourage recurring training on bias, disability, crisis response and de-escalation, with tests rather than attendance alone.
  • A possible argument for the grant approach is that it gives states financial support while leaving them a choice about whether to adopt the requirements.
  • Requiring independent handling of specified deadly-force cases could reduce reliance on ordinary local arrangements; the bill offers states several ways to meet that condition.

Case against#

  • Because the Attorney General may award grants and no amount is set, the financial incentive may be limited or uncertain.
  • The bill permits different approaches to independent handling. One concern is that states could qualify under methods that provide different levels or forms of independence.
  • The bill sets broad training subjects but leaves important details—such as proficiency standards and consequences for failing tests—to be worked out elsewhere.
  • States could bear training and system costs without knowing whether grant funding would cover them.