DEA once touted body cameras for their “enhanced transparency.” Now the agency Is abandoning them

Salon - May 7th, 2025

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has discreetly terminated its body camera program, as revealed by an internal email obtained by ProPublica. This decision aligns with a Trump administration executive order that rescinded a 2022 requirement for all federal law enforcement officers to use body cameras. Despite the DEA's move, other Justice Department agencies like the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continue to mandate body cameras. The DEA has not publicly announced this policy change, and links to body camera information on its website are now inactive. The decision has sparked concern among former federal prosecutors and civil oversight groups, who argue that body cameras are essential for accountability and transparency in law enforcement.

The background of the DEA's body camera initiative is rooted in a broader push for accountability following public protests over police conduct, notably after George Floyd's death. The Biden administration had expanded the requirement for body camera use across federal law enforcement in 2022. Experts and observers have noted that body cameras contribute to a decline in complaints against officers, though the exact reasons for this are still debated. The DEA's decision to drop the program may hinder efforts to improve public trust and inter-agency cooperation, as seen when some local police agencies refused to participate in federal task forces due to body camera policies. The implications of this change could affect transparency and accountability in federal law enforcement practices going forward.

Law Enforcement Trump Administration Accountability Biden Administration Transparency Dea Body Cameras

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded examination of the DEA's decision to end its body camera program, supported by credible sources and contextual information. It successfully addresses a topic of significant public interest, with potential implications for law enforcement transparency and accountability. While it effectively conveys the main points and implications, the article could enhance its transparency by providing direct access to primary sources and further balancing perspectives by including more voices from within the DEA or other federal agencies. Overall, the article is clear, timely, and relevant, with the potential to influence public discourse and policy considerations regarding the use of body cameras in law enforcement.

Accuracy

The article appears to be largely accurate, with its primary claims well-supported by details such as the DEA's internal email announcing the termination of the body camera program. The mention of the Trump administration's executive order rescinding the body camera requirement aligns with the events described, though specific details of the executive order itself are not directly quoted in the article. The article also accurately reflects the broader context of body camera usage among federal agencies, though it would benefit from more direct sourcing or links to official documents or statements that confirm these claims.

Balance

The article presents a mostly balanced view by including opinions from various stakeholders, such as a former federal prosecutor and representatives from law enforcement oversight organizations. However, it could improve by including more perspectives from DEA officials or other federal agencies that have continued using body cameras. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the implications of the DEA's decision and the broader policy landscape.

Clarity

The article is clearly written, with a logical flow and structure that makes it easy to follow. It effectively uses subheadings and quotes to break up the text and highlight key points. The language is accessible, avoiding overly technical jargon, which aids comprehension for a general audience.

Source quality

The article is based on credible sources, including internal DEA communications and statements from former federal officials. ProPublica, known for its investigative journalism, lends additional credibility. However, the article would benefit from more direct citations or links to the primary documents or official statements it references, such as the exact text of the executive orders mentioned.

Transparency

While the article provides context about the DEA's decision and its implications, it lacks transparency in terms of direct access to the primary sources it references, such as the internal email or executive orders. It also does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or the methodology used to obtain the information, such as the process of acquiring the internal email.