May 2025. BLUES Vo. 41 No. 5

GUEST COMENTARYPhilip

GUEST COMENTARYPhilip LukensPresident Trump’s AI ExecutiveOrder Could Reshape PolicingOn January 23, 2025, PresidentTrump signed Executive Order (E.O.)14179, titled Removing Barriers toAmerican Leadership in ArtificialIntelligence. This sweeping orderaims to bolster the United States’leadership in artificial intelligence(AI) by removing regulatory andinstitutional hurdles across multiplesectors.Following this landmark directive,the White House released two subsequentmemorandums, M-25-21and M-25-22, which outline specificapplications and guidelines for AIintegration, particularly in governmentaloperations. While these initiativeshold immense potential forinnovation, their impact on policingand procedural justice is a subjectof growing debate.In particular, the executive orderand its accompanying memos areexpected to influence policing inthree critical areas:1. PREDICTIVE POLICING ANDRESOURCE ALLOCATIONMemos M-25-21 and M-25-22pave the way for the use of AI inpredictive policing, wherein algorithmsanalyze historical crime datato forecast future incidents. Thisapproach could help departmentsallocate resources more effectively,potentially reducing crime ratesin high-risk areas. For instance,predictive software might identifypatterns of car theft in specificneighborhoods, allowing officers todeploy targeted patrols.32 The BLUES - MAY ‘25To overcome concerns about equity,departments must ensure thatthe data used for predictive policingis carefully vetted to eliminatebiases. Regular audits of algorithmsand transparent reporting can helpbuild public trust while maintainingaccountability. Additionally, involvingcommunity stakeholders in discussionsabout how predictive toolsare implemented can foster collaborationand mutual understanding.2. ENHANCED SURVEILLANCEAND DATA INTEGRATIONAI-powered surveillance technologies,such as facial recognitionand automated license plate readers,are expected to become widespreadunder the framework of E.O.14179. These systems can processvast amounts of data in real time,aiding in the identification of suspectsand the prevention of crimes.While these tools may improveefficiency and accuracy, they raiseprivacy concerns. To address theseissues and improve accountability,police departments can adopt clearguidelines on the ethical use of surveillancetechnologies. Independentoversight bodies can be establishedto monitor compliance with privacystandards, ensuring that these toolsare used responsibly and withoutinfringing on individual rights.3. ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMSThe memos allow for integratingAI into body-worn camerasequipped with real-time analytics,enabling these devices to automaticallyanalyze footage and flaginstances of excessive force or misconduct.This application aims toenhance oversight and transparencywithin police departments.Implications for policingThe adoption of AI technologiesin law enforcement, spurred by this

executive order and the accompanyingmemos, is expected to revolutionizeseveral aspects of policing.From predictive analytics andsurveillance systems to resourceoptimization and data analysis, AIcould enhance the capabilities ofpolice departments. However, itsimplementation raises significantquestions about equity, accountabilityand trust. Addressing theseconcerns will be critical to ensuresuccessful adoption and reinforcepublic confidence in law enforcementoperations.The pillars of procedural justice— fairness, transparency, voiceand impartiality — serve as thefoundation of trust between lawenforcement and communities. Theintegration of AI, while promising,poses challenges to these principles:• Fairness: AI’s reliance on historicaldata could compromise fairnessif the data contains biases againstmarginalized groups. Ensuring equitywill require robust oversight,diverse training datasets, and regularaudits of AI systems to preventdiscriminatory outcomes.• Transparency: AI algorithms areoften referred to as “black boxes”due to their complexity and lackof explainability. For proceduraljustice to prevail, departments mustprioritize algorithmic transparency.Communities deserve to understandhow decisions — such as resourceallocation or suspect profiling — aremade.• Voice: One of the core tenets ofprocedural justice is giving individualsa voice in the process. AItools, if not carefully implemented,risk sidelining human judgment.Departments must strike a balance,ensuring that technology supports,rather than replaces, the discretionof officers and the inclusion ofcommunity input.• Impartiality: Impartiality demandsthat every individual is treatedequally under the law. While AIhas the potential to reduce humanbias, it must itself be free from bias.Ongoing evaluation and refinementof AI systems will be critical to upholdthis pillar.To address the concerns raised bythe integration of AI technologies inpolicing, departments can adopt amulti-pronged approach.First, transparency and accountabilitymust be central to the designand deployment of these systems.Police departments can establishindependent oversight committeesthat include legal experts, technologistsand community representativesto review the developmentand application of AI tools. Thesecommittees would ensure that thealgorithms are free from biases andthat their use aligns with principlesof fairness and justice.Second, comprehensive trainingprograms should be implementedfor officers to familiarize them withthe ethical implications and operationalaspects of AI technologies. Byequipping officers with the knowledgeto identify potential pitfalls— such as data misinterpretationor over-reliance on technology —departments can bridge the gapbetween AI capabilities and humanjudgment.Third, public engagement is crucial.Police departments can hosttown hall meetings and workshopsto educate citizens on the role ofAI in modern policing and gatherinput on its implementation. Suchefforts can alleviate fears, enhancetransparency, and foster collaborationbetween law enforcement andcommunities.Lastly, clear policies governingdata privacy and the ethical use ofAI tools should be enacted. Thesepolicies must specify the scope,limitations and safeguards for technologieslike facial recognition orpredictive policing. Regular auditsand public reporting on the effectivenessand impact of these toolscan further reinforce accountabilitywhile ensuring adherence to civilliberties.THE PATH FORWARDAs police departments prepare toembrace AI under the directives ofE.O. 14179 and the associated memos,they must navigate a complexlandscape of opportunities andrisks. Policymakers and police leadersmust collaborate to establishethical guidelines, accountabilitymeasures and community engagementstrategies.Technology alone cannot upholdjustice; thus, human oversightshould remain a cornerstone ofAI-assisted policing. Officers mustbe empowered to override algorithmicsuggestions when necessary,ensuring decisions are grounded incontext and empathy. By blendingtechnological advancements withhuman discretion, departments canbetter achieve procedural justicegoals.Training programs will be essentialto equip officers with the skillsneeded to work alongside AI toolseffectively. Additionally, independentoversight bodies should beestablished to monitor the deploymentof AI in policing, ensuring italigns with the principles of proceduraljustice.CONCLUSIONExecutive Order 14179 and itsaccompanying memos represent apivotal step toward integrating AIinto public institutions, includinglaw enforcement. If implementedresponsibly, these technologiescould enhance the efficiency andeffectiveness of policing whilereinforcing public trust. However,without careful attention tofairness, transparency, voice andimpartiality, the risk of underminingprocedural justice remains significant.As we stand on the brink of anAI-driven future, the challenge willbe to harness its potential whilepreserving the core values of justiceand equity.The BLUES - MAY ‘25 33