Tracking how the Trump administration is making the criminal legal system worse – Prison Policy Initiative

Report on U.S. Federal Criminal Legal System Policies and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes recent actions by the U.S. federal administration concerning the criminal legal system, evaluating their implications for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The policies implemented demonstrate a significant departure from principles aimed at fostering just, peaceful, and inclusive societies, directly challenging progress on several key SDGs.

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

A series of administrative actions has directly undermined SDG 16, which aims to promote the rule of law, ensure equal access to justice, and build effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. These measures have weakened due process, encouraged punitive enforcement, and reduced oversight.

Erosion of Due Process and the Rule of Law

Actions have been taken that contravene the fundamental principles of due process and the rule of law, essential for achieving Target 16.3 (promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice).

• Ignoring a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to return an immigrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was incarcerated in El Salvador without due process.
• Arresting a county judge in Wisconsin, an act perceived as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary and undermine its role as a check on executive power.
• Publicly considering the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for undocumented individuals, which would remove fundamental due process protections and allow for imprisonment without judicial review.
• Utilizing presidential clemency powers in a partisan manner, granting pardons and commutations primarily to political allies, including those involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and individuals convicted of federal fraud who have close ties to the administration.

Promotion of Punitive Sentencing and Enforcement

The administration has favored policies that increase incarceration and employ harsh enforcement tactics, moving away from evidence-based solutions and contradicting the goal of building peaceful and just societies.

• Ending the moratorium on the federal death penalty and actively seeking new death sentences.
• Issuing a memorandum directing federal prosecutors to pursue the “most serious, readily provable offenses,” defined as those with long mandatory minimum sentences, a reversal of previous guidance aimed at reducing incarceration.
• Signing an executive order to expand policing, shield officers from accountability, review and potentially terminate all federal consent decrees with law enforcement agencies, and explore the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement.
• Invoking a law to take over the Washington, D.C. police force and activating the National Guard, granting police expanded authority despite historically low crime rates in the city.
• Signing a bill that permanently classifies all fentanyl-related substances as Schedule 1, instituting mandatory minimum sentences and hindering research into overdose treatments.

Diminished Institutional Transparency and Oversight

Measures have been implemented that reduce transparency and eliminate oversight mechanisms, hindering the development of accountable institutions as called for in Target 16.6.

• Signing an executive order to limit inquiries into the disparate racial impact of federal programs and policies.
• Shuttering the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a tool designed to track police misconduct.
• Ending or recommending the termination of federal consent decrees and investigations into constitutional violations by police departments in cities including Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Louisville, Phoenix, and Memphis.
• Proposing or implementing changes to Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys that eliminate questions related to gender identity, making it more difficult to understand the experiences of victims and incarcerated populations.

Undermining SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 5: Gender Equality

Several policies have disproportionately affected marginalized communities and rolled back protections for women and transgender individuals, directly conflicting with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

Regressive Policies on Gender Identity and Equality

Actions have specifically targeted transgender individuals and reduced support for victims of gender-based violence, undermining Target 5.1 (end discrimination against all women and girls) and Target 5.2 (eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls).

• Signing executive orders to end gender-affirming care in federal prisons, mandate that transgender women be housed in men’s facilities, and remove protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). A federal judge has temporarily blocked these orders.
• Eliminating all federal funding for the PREA Resource Center, which supports efforts to prevent and address sexual assault in correctional facilities.
• Rescinding $1.5 million in grants to the state of Maine after its Department of Corrections refused to move a transgender woman to a men’s prison.
• Freezing funding from the Office on Violence Against Women for programs supporting victims of domestic violence.

Impact on SDG 3: Good Health, SDG 1: No Poverty, and SDG 11: Sustainable Communities

The administration has systematically defunded programs essential for public health, poverty reduction, and community safety, thereby worsening conditions for vulnerable populations and increasing reliance on the carceral system. This contravenes SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Deterioration of Prison and Jail Conditions

Conditions within correctional facilities are set to worsen due to policies that prioritize privatization and reduce inmate support systems, impacting the health and well-being of incarcerated individuals (Target 3.8).

• Rescinding an order that prohibited the federal government from contracting with private prison operators.
• Postponing Federal Communications Commission rules designed to limit the cost of phone and video calls for incarcerated people, increasing financial burdens on families.
• Changing sentence credit calculations, resulting in longer periods of incarceration for many federal prisoners.
• Dropping civil rights lawsuits against South Carolina and Louisiana regarding the abusive treatment of incarcerated people and individuals with mental illness.

Reduction of Social, Health, and Community Support Systems

Significant funding cuts to social programs undermine proven, non-carceral solutions to public safety, mental health, and homelessness, thereby exacerbating poverty and inequality.

1. Homelessness and Housing: Effectively shuttered the Interagency Council on Homelessness, undermining the “Housing First” model, a proven strategy for reducing homelessness and incarceration (Target 11.1).
2. Mental Health and Substance Use: Cancelled or revoked $11.4 billion in grants for substance use disorder and mental health treatment and massively cut funding and staffing at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), jeopardizing access to critical care (Target 3.5).
3. Bail Reform: Signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from state and local governments that have ended the use of cash bail, a practice known to perpetuate cycles of poverty and incarceration (Target 1.3).
4. Violence Prevention and Reentry: Eliminated 373 Department of Justice grants totaling millions of dollars for organizations focused on violence prevention, reentry services, diversion programs, and victim support across numerous states. This includes prohibiting Byrne-JAG funds from being used for violence-prevention programs.

Neglect of SDG 4: Quality Education

Access to education for incarcerated individuals, a key component of rehabilitation and successful reentry, has been curtailed, representing a setback for SDG 4 (Quality Education) and its goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all (Target 4.3).

• Ending the “Fresh Start” program, which assisted incarcerated students in qualifying for Pell Grants to pursue higher education.
• Cutting grants authorized by the Digital Equity Act of 2021, which funded programs providing internet access to people in prisons and jails.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues within the American criminal legal system that directly or indirectly connect to a number of Sustainable Development Goals. These goals focus on creating a just, equitable, and healthy society for all.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominently featured SDG. The article’s core theme revolves around the erosion of due process, the rule of law, access to justice, and the transparency of institutions. It details actions that make the criminal legal system “harsher, less effective, and even more unfair,” which is in direct opposition to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies with accountable institutions.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article points to policies that disproportionately affect specific groups. It mentions an executive order gutting inquiries into policies with a “disparate impact on certain people, particularly people of color.” It also discusses actions targeting immigrants and transgender individuals, thereby exacerbating inequalities.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The article specifically addresses actions targeting transgender people, particularly transgender women. This includes ending gender-affirming care, mandating that trans women be held in men’s prisons, and eliminating protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Furthermore, it notes the defunding of programs that support victims of domestic and sexual violence, which undermines efforts to eliminate violence against women.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article discusses significant funding cuts to mental health and substance use disorder programs. These cuts directly impact public health and well-being, as untreated issues often lead to increased contact with the criminal legal system. The article also mentions that prisons “make people die sooner,” linking incarceration conditions to negative health outcomes.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article touches upon issues that affect community safety and well-being. It details the undermining of the “Housing First model” to address homelessness and the elimination of funding for numerous local violence prevention programs in cities like Baltimore, Chicago, and Oklahoma City. These actions hinder the goal of making communities safer and more inclusive.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article connects the criminal legal system to poverty by highlighting the administration’s opposition to bail reform. It states that “money bail creates a cycle of poverty and jail time,” directly linking a specific policy to the perpetuation of poverty.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified as being negatively impacted by the actions described in the article.

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The article’s entire section on “Eviscerating due process and the rule of law,” which includes ignoring Supreme Court rulings, arresting a judge, and considering the suspension of Habeas Corpus, directly undermines this target. The use of politically motivated pardons for allies also contradicts the principle of equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The section “Eliminating oversight and transparency” provides direct evidence of undermining this target. Examples include shuttering the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, ending consent decrees with police departments, and removing questions from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys that provide insight into the experiences of specific populations.
   • Target 16.a: “Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence…” The article details extensive cuts to federal grants for local violence prevention programs, which directly weakens the capacity of these institutions to prevent violence.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.” The executive order targeting transgender prisoners and the order to gut inquiries into disparate impacts of federal policies on people of color are examples of actions that run counter to this target.
3. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The policies described in the article that specifically target transgender women, such as housing them in men’s facilities and ending gender-affirming care, represent a form of discrimination.
   • Target 5.2: “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls…” The article mentions the elimination of all funding to the Prison Rape Elimination Act Resource Center and cuts to grants for organizations supporting survivors of sexual and domestic violence, which weakens efforts to address and prevent such violence.
4. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.5: “Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse…” The article explicitly states that the administration “cancelled or revoked $11.4 billion in grants designed to address substance use disorder and mental health issues” and cut funding for recovery courts, directly hindering progress on this target.
5. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.1: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing…” The article mentions the administration “effectively shuttered the Interagency Council on Homelessness,” the leading federal agency behind the “Housing First model,” thereby undermining a key strategy to provide housing.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several specific, quantifiable data points and policy actions that can serve as indicators to measure the negative progress (or regression) on these targets.

• Indicator for Target 16.3 (Rule of Law): The number of presidential pardons and commutations granted to political allies versus those granted through a standard, non-partisan process. The article lists several specific instances (Jan. 6 participants, Trevor Milton, Paul Walczak, etc.).
• Indicator for Target 16.6 (Transparent Institutions): The status of the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (mentioned as “shuttering” it). The number of questions related to gender identity eliminated from BJS surveys (the article mentions specific changes to surveys of jails, victims of sexual crimes, and the National Criminal Victimization Survey).
• Indicator for Target 16.a (Violence Prevention): The total monetary value of funding cuts to violence prevention programs. The article provides numerous specific examples, such as “$6 million for diversion programs” in New Jersey, “$2 million for violence prevention programs in Massachusetts,” and “$3.2 million for violence prevention in Baltimore.”
• Indicator for Target 5.2 (Violence Against Women): The funding status of the Prison Rape Elimination Act Resource Center (mentioned as having “eliminated all funding”). The amount of funding rescinded from programs supporting victims of domestic violence, such as the “$750,000 to Survivors.org.”
• Indicator for Target 3.5 (Substance Abuse Treatment): The total monetary value of grants cancelled or revoked for substance use disorder and mental health. The article specifies this amount as “$11.4 billion.”
• Indicator for Target 11.1 (Access to Housing): The operational status and funding of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, which the article states was “effectively shuttered.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: prisonpolicy.org