Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026. It allows the Attorney General to give grants to States that require fair and impartial police training for their law enforcement officers. To get these grants, States must also have laws requiring independent investigations and prosecutions when officers use deadly force. Law enforcement officers and academy enrollees must complete initial training of at least 8 hours and at least 4 hours of training every year thereafter. The training must cover anti-bias, cultural diversity, crisis intervention, de-escalation tactics, and scenario-based tests. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice is required to conduct audits of States receiving these grants to ensure they follow the training rules.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +6
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill provides grants to states requiring fair and impartial police training and independent investigations into the use of deadly force.
- Scored +4
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Anti-bias training and independent oversight of deadly force incidents help address systemic disparities affecting Black Americans in police interactions.
- Scored +4
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Mandatory instruction on police interactions with individuals with mental illnesses or physical disabilities enhances safety for disabled persons.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
States must adopt specific federal training criteria and independent prosecution statutes to qualify for grant funding.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3062(a)(1): This provision requires law enforcement officers and academy enrollees to complete training on fair and impartial policing, which includes anti-bias training, cultural diversity, crisis intervention, and de-escalation tactics. This might be considered positive because it helps officers better handle interactions with the public, including individuals with mental illness or disabilities.
-
Section 3062(a)(1)(D): This section requires officers to demonstrate proficiency in training subjects through scenario-based tests. This could be positive as it ensures officers actually learn and can apply the de-escalation and fair policing techniques taught in the sessions.
-
Section 3063 and Section 3064(2): These sections require States to enact independent prosecution statutes for cases where an officer's use of deadly force results in death or injury, using methods like civilian review boards, the state attorney general, special prosecutors, or outside agencies. This might be considered positive because it creates independent oversight when police use deadly force against individuals.
-
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 3062(b)(3): This section states that a State that was eligible for a grant but falls out of compliance with the training requirements by the end of a fiscal year will not be eligible for a grant during the next fiscal year. This could be considered a negative burden or consequence for a State and its residents if losing grant funding reduces the State's resources for law enforcement training and programs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Anti-bias training and independent oversight of deadly force incidents help address systemic disparities affecting Black Americans in police interactions. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Mandatory instruction on police interactions with individuals with mental illnesses or physical disabilities enhances safety for disabled persons. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Fair and impartial policing requirements protect minority communities, including Hispanic Americans, from biased law enforcement practices. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Training requirements specifically mandate anti-bias instruction based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Mandatory cultural diversity and impartial policing standards improve law enforcement interactions with Native American populations. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General anti-bias and cultural diversity training provisions offer broader protections for Asian Americans during police encounters. Would women be better off under this? — The bill includes explicit anti-bias training provisions regarding gender, improving protections and fairness.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill provides grants to states requiring fair and impartial police training and independent investigations into the use of deadly force. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Mandatory crisis intervention and training on police interactions with individuals with mental illnesses or disabilities improves protections for vulnerable groups. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill mandates anti-bias and cultural diversity training for law enforcement officers, which helps narrow racial disparities in policing.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The requirement for independent investigations and prosecutions of deadly force incidents increases accountability and transparency in law enforcement actions. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation expands federal oversight by tasking the Department of Justice Inspector General with auditing state compliance. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — States must adopt specific federal training criteria and independent prosecution statutes to qualify for grant funding.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.