Police Training and Independent Review

Summary#

The Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026 is a proposed law that would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Its stated goal is to offer grants to states that require annual fair-and-impartial-policing training and have a law requiring independent handling of certain deadly-force cases. The bill is not law; it was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

  • The Attorney General could make one-year grants to eligible states. The bill does not require the Attorney General to award a grant.
  • To qualify, a state would have to require law-enforcement academy enrollees and officers to complete an initial training of at least eight hours, then at least four hours each year. Training must cover bias, cultural diversity, interactions with people with mental illness or disabilities, crisis intervention, de-escalation, and scenario-based practice and testing.
  • A state would have to certify training completion to the Attorney General. Its attorney general would have to verify compliance, and the Justice Department Inspector General would audit a number of grant-receiving states it considers appropriate.
  • A state would also need a law requiring independent prosecution in certain criminal cases involving an officer’s use of deadly force that resulted in death or injury. The bill lists several ways to meet this requirement, including state attorney general involvement, a special prosecutor, an independent prosecutor, a civilian review board, or an agreement for another law-enforcement agency to investigate and report to the state attorney general.

What it means for you#

  • State governments: The bill creates a grant incentive, not a direct nationwide order to adopt these rules. A state seeking a grant would have to meet both the training and independent-prosecution conditions. The bill sets an initial compliance deadline of 240 days after enactment; the Attorney General could allow an additional 120 days for a state making good-faith efforts.
  • Officers and academy enrollees in a state seeking a grant: The state would have to require the specified initial and yearly training, including tests showing proficiency in the subjects. The bill does not set a particular passing score or training provider.
  • People affected by an officer’s use of deadly force: A qualifying state law would have to cover criminal cases where an officer is a possible defendant, the alleged offense involves deadly force used in the course of duty, and the force resulted in death or injury. The bill does not create a direct right for an individual to seek a particular kind of review.
  • Other states and the public: The bill does not itself change local police powers, create a national review office, or require every state to adopt an independent-prosecution law.

Money#

The bill authorizes one-year grants but gives no grant amount or cost estimate.

  • It does not state a total appropriation, how grant amounts would be set, or how many states might receive grants.
  • States seeking grants would have to arrange and verify training and meet the independent-prosecution condition; the bill gives no estimate of those costs.
  • The bill assigns audits to the Justice Department Inspector General but does not estimate their cost or staffing needs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how grant applications would be assessed, how much each grant could be, or whether grants could be renewed.
  • It does not set training curriculum details, proficiency standards, or a process for handling missed training or failed tests.
  • The listed independent-review approaches differ. The bill does not set common rules for independence, public access to findings, or timelines.
  • “Injury” is not defined. The bill also does not explain how its requirements interact with existing state laws or programs.
  • The parent Act is not supplied, so I could not verify how this grant program would interact with current federal law or other grants.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to encourage regular training on bias, crisis response, de-escalation, and interactions with people with disabilities—not just one-time instruction.
  • Scenario-based tests could require officers to demonstrate proficiency, rather than only attend training.
  • A grant could help states pay to implement the required training and case-handling rules.
  • The bill offers several ways for states to arrange independent investigation or prosecution, rather than requiring one model for every state.

Case against#

  • The bill does not provide grant amounts or estimates for the training, verification, and audit work it requires. States may not know what support would be available before taking on those responsibilities.
  • The bill treats several different arrangements as ways to meet the independence condition. It does not set shared safeguards to ensure that each option is independent in practice.
  • The grant program depends on state laws and compliance, so it would not create a uniform requirement across the country.
  • The bill does not specify how training quality or proficiency would be measured, leaving important standards to be worked out elsewhere.