Under the radar, a little-known federal program is pumping tens of millions of dollars into local police departments across the country. Known as Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act, this program allows local law enforcement to purchase military-grade equipment at discounted rates, essentially turning the federal government into their purchasing agent.
The impact of the program has been significant, with over $500 million spent on gear and software that could be used by a hostile army, according to estimates from Women for Weapons Trade Transparency. The program has allowed police departments to acquire items like armored vehicles, video surveillance systems, thermal imaging devices, and even covert camera systems.
The 1122 program's lack of transparency is what concerns Lillian Mauldin, the co-founder of the nonprofit group that produced a report on the issue. She fears that local police are using this equipment not for public safety but to intimidate protesters, suppress free speech, and enforce mass deportations. "It serves as a threat to free speech, an intimidation tactic to protest," she said.
The program's growth under President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows, particularly after he revoked an executive order meant to limit the transfer of aggressive military gear to local police. Some are worried that this could embolden law enforcement agencies to engage in more militarized tactics.
Critics argue that the 1122 program is a ticking time bomb for civil liberties and public safety. Mauldin's report highlights how tens of millions of dollars' worth of equipment have been purchased through the program, raising questions about how these funds were spent and by whom.
Women for Weapons Trade Transparency calls for the elimination of the 1122 program, citing concerns that its lack of transparency is as problematic as its own content. Mauldin fears that this type of militarized gear could be used to further suppress dissenting voices, particularly in communities already facing systemic injustices.
The 1122 program's existence has been hidden from public view for decades, despite the attention surrounding another controversial program, Section 1033, which has long sent surplus gear like mine-resistant vehicles and bayonets to local police. While some see the two programs as distinct, critics argue that they share a common thread – the blurring of lines between domestic law enforcement and military operations.
As concerns about authoritarianism grow under Trump's administration, advocates for press freedom warn that coverage of these issues is often sanitized or downplayed, with headlines praising the president's 'unconventional' approach instead of confronting the implications.
The impact of the program has been significant, with over $500 million spent on gear and software that could be used by a hostile army, according to estimates from Women for Weapons Trade Transparency. The program has allowed police departments to acquire items like armored vehicles, video surveillance systems, thermal imaging devices, and even covert camera systems.
The 1122 program's lack of transparency is what concerns Lillian Mauldin, the co-founder of the nonprofit group that produced a report on the issue. She fears that local police are using this equipment not for public safety but to intimidate protesters, suppress free speech, and enforce mass deportations. "It serves as a threat to free speech, an intimidation tactic to protest," she said.
The program's growth under President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows, particularly after he revoked an executive order meant to limit the transfer of aggressive military gear to local police. Some are worried that this could embolden law enforcement agencies to engage in more militarized tactics.
Critics argue that the 1122 program is a ticking time bomb for civil liberties and public safety. Mauldin's report highlights how tens of millions of dollars' worth of equipment have been purchased through the program, raising questions about how these funds were spent and by whom.
Women for Weapons Trade Transparency calls for the elimination of the 1122 program, citing concerns that its lack of transparency is as problematic as its own content. Mauldin fears that this type of militarized gear could be used to further suppress dissenting voices, particularly in communities already facing systemic injustices.
The 1122 program's existence has been hidden from public view for decades, despite the attention surrounding another controversial program, Section 1033, which has long sent surplus gear like mine-resistant vehicles and bayonets to local police. While some see the two programs as distinct, critics argue that they share a common thread – the blurring of lines between domestic law enforcement and military operations.
As concerns about authoritarianism grow under Trump's administration, advocates for press freedom warn that coverage of these issues is often sanitized or downplayed, with headlines praising the president's 'unconventional' approach instead of confronting the implications.
. It seems like a total abuse of power and a recipe for disaster. I mean, we're already seeing law enforcement using military-grade equipment to silence protesters and suppress dissenting voices... it's not even a stretch to imagine how this could be used to further militarize our police forces and infringe on civil liberties 
. And let's not forget that there's no transparency around these funds - it's like the government is trying to hide something 
. I'm all for keeping our communities safe, but we need to do it in a way that respects human rights and the rule of law, not by empowering police forces with equipment that could be used to terrorize us 
. We need to shine a light on this program and make sure we're holding those in power accountable 
.
. I mean, think about it - we're basically giving police departments access to military-grade equipment that could be used against us in a war zone. It's like they're being given a big toy box and told to go wild. And no one's checking on how they're using this stuff? 
I think this whole thing is super problematic 
. If we're not even told who's buying this stuff and how it's being used, that's a huge red flag right there. It's like they're trying to keep it all under wraps because they know people would freak out if they saw what was really going on.
. If we're not speaking up now, when are we ever going to speak up? It's like we're just letting our local police departments run amok and do whatever they want.
. We need to demand transparency and accountability from our government officials. This isn't some fringe issue; it's a legitimate concern about the erosion of civil liberties and public safety. We should all be paying attention to this and speaking out against it 
.
. And what's up with President Trump revoking an executive order that was meant to limit militarized gear? Is he trying to let law enforcement get away with some pretty heavy-handed tactics 
? And don't even get me started on the fact that some of this equipment could be used for mass deportations... that's just not right 
. I think we need to be having a lot more conversations about this kind of thing and making sure our police departments are using their resources responsibly 
.
. I mean, what's next? Armored tanks on Main St? 
. It's like they're trying to keep this under wraps because it's too sketchy to be out in the open 
. I'm all for public safety, but not at the expense of our civil liberties 
. We need to know how this money is being spent and who's getting their hands on all these military-grade toys 
. Can't we just have a nice, peaceful conversation without all these fancy gadgets and surveillance systems? 
They're insane! I mean, it's cool that local police can get this gear at discounted rates, but what's up with all the secrecy around it? It feels like they're hiding something from us. I'm not saying we should be paranoid or anything, but come on, folks! We need to know how our tax dollars are being spent. 
. And yeah, maybe it is a little weird that there's so much secrecy around it, but come on, we're talking about local police departments here, not some shadowy government agency 
.
. So let's not jump to conclusions or make wild accusations just because there are some concerns about how it's being used 
. I think we can all agree that transparency is important, but we should be having a more measured conversation about this rather than freaking out 
.
.
. We can't just sit back and let our cops become more like special forces operatives 
. That's not the America I signed up for 
. The idea that this equipment could be used to suppress free speech, intimidate protesters, and enforce mass deportations is basically a nightmare scenario 
. And don't even get me started on how we've been told it's "just" about public safety... yeah, right 
.
!
. But at the same time, I think we gotta keep things in perspective - it's not like they're using it to spy on innocent civilians or anything 
. The fact that the program is shrouded in secrecy is definitely a major red flag 
.
. We need more transparency and accountability, for sure 
, and we're just now starting to see the full extent of its impact 
. I mean, who needs all that gear for public safety, right? It's gotta be used to intimidate protesters and enforce mass deportations, or so it seems 
. And what's with the sanitized headlines? Are we supposed to just ignore the implications of authoritarianism growing under Trump's administration? Not on my watch 
not to mention it's basically being bought by local police, which already raises some serious red flags about accountability 
But seriously, this Section 1122 program is giving me major chill vibes. Like, what's next? We get to watch our local police departments become like something out of Total Recall? 
Can we not just have a peaceful protest without having to worry about being pepper-sprayed or tear-gassed? 
. this 1122 program is just another way for the gov to give law enforcement an excuse to get aggressive and suppress dissenting voices 
. and let's be real, who gets to decide how these funds are spent? not us, apparently 
. We have to be careful about who's in charge of policing our police officers 
.