Democrats Think Officers Policing Protests Need to Identify Themselves. Bill Barr Disagrees.

Unidentified federal security forces block 16th Street at I Street on June 3.Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Over the past few days, Mother Jones and other media outlets have noted the presence of armed personnel with no visible identification confronting the protests in DC that were sparked by the recent police killing of George Floyd. These officers have consistently said that they are “with the Department of Justice” or that they are part of the “federal government.”

The Justice Department has since said these are officers are from Special Operations Control units in the Bureau of Prisons—that is, officers trained primarily to quell prison riots.

In response, Democrats in both chambers said Wednesday they would introduce legislation requiring uniformed federal officers doing domestic security work to identify what agency or military branch they represent. Several shared a photo I took on Tuesday. 

In a letter Thursday to President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) requested a list of the agencies involved in responding to protests in DC and an explanation of the roles different troops and law enforcement agencies are fulfilling. Pelosi also blasted the deployment of officers without clear identification. “The practice of officers operating with full anonymity undermines accountability, ignites government distrust and suspicion, and is counter to the principle of procedural justice and legitimacy during this precarious moment in our nation’s history,” she wrote.

She noted that the Justice Department has previously warned local police departments against allowing officers to work anonymously.

Michael Carvajal, the acting BOP director, addressed this criticism in a news conference on Thursday, saying he was not aware of officers being ordered not to identify themselves, and stated the issue was that “within the confines of our institutions and we don’t need to identify ourselves. Most of our identification is institution-specific and probably wouldn’t mean a whole lot to people in DC.” 

But, he said: “I probably should have done a better job of marking them nationally as the agency. Point is well taken.” 

Barr, however, was not so conciliatory. In the same press conference Thursday, he defended the use of BOP personnel and said they have “emergency response” training—nevermind that the officers are now confronting peaceful protesters. The attorney general did not acknowledge any problem with using officers who can’t be identified to police protests.

“In the federal system, the agencies don’t wear badges with their names and stuff like that,” Barr said. “I could understand why some of these individuals simply wouldn’t want to talk to people about who they are, if that in fact was the case.”

Barr declined to elaborate. And Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and the BOP’s press office did not respond to specific questions about the legal authority of BOP in Washington and about the number of officers deployed. 

Unsurprisingly, Barr’s comments aren’t going down well with Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), one of the members pushing legislation to require officers identify themselves, tweeted: “Last time I checked we don’t do secret police in this country.”

Inae Oh contributed reporting.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate