The DEA abandons bodycams after only four years

Engadget - May 7th, 2025

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has quietly abandoned its body-worn camera program, a move disclosed in an internal email obtained by ProPublica. This decision aligns with a directive from the Trump administration to rescind certain executive orders, including those expanding body camera use among federal law enforcement. This change was made without any public announcement, contrasting with the DEA's previous stance that highlighted the transparency and accountability bodycams provide. While other agencies under the Department of Justice, such as the US Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), continue to use bodycams, the DEA's withdrawal raises questions about the stated rationale for consistency.

The abandonment of the bodycam program is significant given the public demand for law enforcement accountability following high-profile incidents like George Floyd's murder. The decision also contradicts a substantial $30.4 million contract the Department of Justice signed with Axon for bodycam technology, a deal that remains largely unfulfilled. The implications of the DEA's move suggest a selective approach to policy implementation, possibly undermining efforts to build trust and accountability in law enforcement practices. This development also highlights the broader debate on the role of body cameras in policing and government efficiency.

Trump Administration Department Of Justice Dea Executive Orders Pro Publica Law Enforcement Accountability Body Worn Cameras Axon

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-researched and timely examination of the DEA's decision to abandon its bodycam program. It effectively uses credible sources to support its claims and maintains a clear narrative structure. The article's focus on law enforcement transparency and accountability resonates with current public interest, contributing to broader discussions on police reform. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced perspective by including viewpoints from current DEA officials or civil rights groups. While the article challenges norms and has the potential to provoke debate, it remains grounded in factual reporting, enhancing its credibility. Overall, the article succeeds in informing readers about a significant policy shift while encouraging further exploration of its implications.

Accuracy

The article presents a generally accurate account of the DEA's abandonment of its bodycam program, supported by an internal email cited by ProPublica. The claim that the DEA did not make a formal public announcement is consistent with the findings. However, the rationale for the program's termination, linked to Trump's executive order, requires further scrutiny to confirm the alignment with specific policy changes. The mention of other DOJ agencies continuing to use bodycams is accurate, as confirmed by spokespeople for these agencies. While the article correctly reports the Axon contract details, further examination of the contract's implications is necessary.

Balance

The article provides a balanced perspective by acknowledging both the benefits and criticisms of bodycams. It quotes a former US attorney to highlight the protective aspect of bodycams for officers, while also discussing their role in preventing abuse. However, the article leans slightly towards criticizing the DEA's decision without exploring potential justifications from the agency's perspective. The mention of ICE's earlier abandonment of bodycams adds context but could be perceived as reinforcing a negative narrative without a counterbalancing viewpoint.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language to convey its points. It effectively presents the sequence of events leading to the DEA's decision and provides relevant background information. The tone is neutral, though it occasionally shifts towards a critical stance. The logical flow of information aids comprehension, but the article could improve clarity by explicitly stating the implications of the DEA's decision for law enforcement transparency and accountability.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources such as ProPublica and statements from former officials, enhancing its reliability. The internal DEA email serves as a primary source for the program's termination, and the inclusion of a former US attorney's perspective adds authority. However, the article could benefit from direct statements from current DEA officials to provide a more comprehensive view. The absence of potential conflicts of interest in the sources used strengthens the article's impartiality.

Transparency

The article clearly discloses its reliance on an internal DEA email obtained by ProPublica, providing transparency about its information sources. It also references a public executive order, which adds context to the DEA's decision. However, the article could improve transparency by detailing the methodology used to obtain and verify the internal email. Additionally, clarifying the basis for questioning the 'consistent' rationale would enhance the article's transparency.