Accountability Matters to Good Cops

The federal government recently shut down the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD), a tool designed to track misconduct among federal officers. To date, neither the White House nor the Justice Department has provided an explanation for decommissioning NLEAD, which helps prevent “wandering officers” from moving between departments unnoticed. National law enforcement leaders have criticized the shutdown, noting that the database gave executives access to information and context about candidates while protecting due process rights.

Mechanisms for police accountability are critical—not only for protecting the public, but also for upholding the integrity of the profession. Dedicated law enforcement officers do not want to work alongside “bad apples” who tarnish the reputation of the profession. Despite the importance of such accountability measures, the public has not received a clear explanation for NLEAD’s termination, leaving officers and communities questioning the decision.

While the closure raises questions, its overall impact is limited. This is because most law enforcement officers operate at the state and local levels, while NLEAD only provided data on federal officers. For its first published report in December 2024, the Bureau of Justice Statistics used the database to identify 4,790 misconduct incidents over the previous five-year period, with nearly 1,500 federal officers suspended, fired, or having resigned under some form of investigation for misconduct. More than 300 officers were convicted of a crime.

The elimination of NLEAD mainly affects officers employed by federal agencies. State and local departments primarily rely on the National Decertification Index (NDI) to check officer records from other states; however, deemphasizing the importance of officer misconduct at the federal level certainly sends the wrong message to state and local agencies.

Although NLEAD covered federal law enforcement only (around 16 percent of law enforcement personnel across the country), it helped ensure that officers with troubling histories could not transfer freely between agencies. Officers who engage in misconduct jeopardize both public safety and their colleagues’ well-being by undermining the legitimacy of the force. Programs like NLEAD were intended to help distinguish dedicated officers from those who violate public trust. National databases like the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of Force database serve as tools for both police officers and the public by refuting unfounded rhetoric and demonstrating how infrequently officers engage in excessive force.

NLEAD’s closure is especially surprising given that one of President Donald J. Trump’s own executive orders (EOs) mandated its creation in 2020. Titled “Safe Policing for Safe Communities,” the EO acknowledged that while law enforcement officers are essential to public safety, some have misused their authority and should be accountable for such actions. Given the focus on accountability in the original order, and in light of Trump’s promise to restore a government that “answers to the American people,” it is perplexing why the administration would choose to eliminate a tool designed to align with those very goals.

One possible explanation for NLEAD’s closure is the involvement of the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Responsible for streamlining government operations and ensuring cost-effectiveness, DOGE may have assessed NLEAD and considered its scope too narrow to justify continued funding. Large-scale federal databases also require significant resources for upkeep, security, and accuracy, which may have contributed to the decision to take NLEAD offline. While cost cutting and efficiency are valid considerations, eliminating this tracking tool without a viable alternative raises concerns about the government’s commitment to protecting law enforcement.

While NLEAD was limited in scope and not publicly accessible, it represented a necessary first step in creating a system of oversight for federal law enforcement. Officers with troubling histories should not be allowed to move from one jurisdiction to another without their new department knowing their background. The risks posed by such officers are substantial—not just for the public, but for the officers who are dedicated to serving with professionalism and integrity. No officer wants to work alongside someone with a history of abuse or dishonesty, as these officers undermine public trust in the profession and create a toxic work environment.

The problem of wandering officers is not confined to federal agencies. Even without NLEAD, state and local governments must continue to use and grow their own systems to track officer misconduct and share information across departments. Such systems are critical to ensure that officers with histories of serious misconduct cannot transfer to a new jurisdiction without proper oversight. NDI allows agencies to see whether an officer’s certification has been revoked, providing critical information to prevent decertified officers from being rehired elsewhere. This is not just about protecting the public—it is about supporting the vast majority of officers who uphold the law with integrity.

NLEAD’s closure is a misstep for police accountability and transparency. A lack of reasoning regarding the decision only deepens concerns about commitment to addressing officer misconduct. Policing is a difficult and dangerous job, and accountability systems like NLEAD are essential to ensure that law enforcement remains a profession built on trust, integrity, and safety.