PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10653 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10653 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10653 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10653 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026 would let the U.S. Attorney General award grants to states for annual police training and independent investigation or prosecution procedures. Participating states would need training on bias, crisis intervention, and reducing confrontation. They would also need a law requiring independent procedures for certain criminal matters involving officers’ on-duty use of deadly force that caused death or injury. The bill allows several ways to meet that independence requirement.
This Act may be cited as the Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026.
The Attorney General may make a grant to a State for purposes of implementing the training requirements described in section 3062(a) and an independent prosecution of law enforcement statute as described in section 3063.
(A) anti-bias training on implicit and explicit bias on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability; (B) training regarding— (i) cultural diversity; (ii) police interaction with individuals with mental illness or behavioral, mental, or physical disabilities; (iii) crisis intervention; and (iv) de-escalation tactics;
The term independent prosecution of law enforcement statute means a statute requiring an independent prosecution in a criminal matter in which— (A) 1 or more of the possible defendants is a law enforcement officer; (B) 1 or more of the alleged offenses involves the law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force in the course of carrying out that officer’s duty; and (C) the law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force resulted in a death or injury.
The term independent prosecution, with respect to a criminal investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force, includes using 1 or more of the following methods:
The bill would add a grant program to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The U.S. Attorney General could award grants to states for implementing the training requirements and the independent-prosecution law requirement. Each grant would last one federal budget year; awards would be discretionary.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
3061. Grant authority (a) In general The Attorney General may make a grant to a State for purposes of implementing the training requirements described in section 3062(a) and an independent prosecution of law enforcement statute as described in section 3063. (b) Term The term of a grant under subsection (a) shall be 1 fiscal year.
To meet the proposed training requirements, a state would have to require annual fair and impartial policing training for all its law enforcement officers and law enforcement academy students. Subjects would include unconscious and explicit bias involving the listed personal characteristics, cultural diversity, interaction with people with mental illness or disabilities, crisis intervention, and tactics for reducing confrontation.
A State shall require that all individuals enrolled in an academy of a law enforcement agency of the State and all law enforcement officers of the State complete a training session on fair and impartial policing each year that includes— (A) anti-bias training on implicit and explicit bias on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability; (B) training regarding— (i) cultural diversity; (ii) police interaction with individuals with mental illness or behavioral, mental, or physical disabilities; (iii) crisis intervention; and (iv) de-escalation tactics;
Officers and academy students would need at least eight hours of initial training and at least four hours every year afterward. Training would include practice scenarios, and officers would have to demonstrate their skills through scenario-based tests.
(C) scenario-based training; and (D) a requirement that officers demonstrate proficiency in the subjects of the training through scenario-based tests.
Each law enforcement officer and each individual enrolled in an academy of a law enforcement agency of a State shall complete— (A) initial training described in paragraph (1) of not less than 8 hours; and (B) not less than 4 hours of training described in paragraph (1) every year thereafter.
States would have to certify to the U.S. Attorney General that all covered officers and academy students completed the required training. A grant-receiving state's attorney general would also have to verify that the training meets the bill's requirements.
A State shall certify to the Attorney General that all individuals enrolled in an academy of a law enforcement agency of the State and all law enforcement officers of the State have completed the training sessions described in paragraph (1) in accordance with paragraph (2).
The attorney general of a State receiving a grant under this part shall verify that the training of individuals enrolled in an academy of a law enforcement agency of the State and all law enforcement officers of the State meets the requirements under subsection (a).
For each federal budget year in which grants are awarded, the Justice Department's Inspector General would have to audit recipient states for training compliance. The Inspector General would determine how many states to audit.
For each fiscal year for which grants are made under this part, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct audits of an appropriate number, as determined by the Inspector General, of States receiving such a grant to ensure compliance with the training requirements under subsection (a).
The initial training-compliance deadline for grant eligibility would be 240 days after enactment. The U.S. Attorney General could give a state another 120 days if it was making good-faith efforts to comply.
To be eligible for a grant under this part, a State shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), be in compliance with the training requirements under subsection (a) not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this part, except that the Attorney General may grant an additional 120 days to a State that is making good faith efforts to comply with that subsection.
A state that missed the initial training deadline could qualify for a later year's grant by complying by the last day of the previous federal budget year, subject to the independent-prosecution law requirement. A previously eligible state that was out of training compliance at year-end would lose eligibility for the following year.
A State that fails to achieve compliance with the training requirements under subsection (a) in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be eligible for a grant under this part for a fiscal year (subject to section 3063) if, on the last day of the previous fiscal year, the State was in compliance with those requirements.
A State that was eligible for a grant under this part and that, as of the last day of a fiscal year, is not in compliance with the training requirements under subsection (a) shall not be eligible for a grant under this part during the next fiscal year.
For each year's grant, a state would also need an independent-prosecution law enacted and in effect by the end of the previous federal budget year. That law would have to require independent procedures in criminal matters involving a possible officer defendant, an alleged offense involving that officer's on-duty use of deadly force, and a resulting death or injury.
To be eligible for a grant under this part for a fiscal year, a State shall, as of the last day of the prior fiscal year, have enacted and have in effect an independent prosecution of law enforcement statute.
The term independent prosecution of law enforcement statute means a statute requiring an independent prosecution in a criminal matter in which— (A) 1 or more of the possible defendants is a law enforcement officer; (B) 1 or more of the alleged offenses involves the law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force in the course of carrying out that officer’s duty; and (C) the law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force resulted in a death or injury.
The bill would define deadly force as force a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Force can qualify even when it does not cause death, provided a reasonable person would consider it likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
The term deadly force means force that a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
The bill's definition of independent prosecution would allow one or more listed methods. These include an agency or civilian board that investigates and independently reviews all officer use-of-force allegations; assigning the relevant state's attorney general to investigate and prosecute; or automatically referring cases to a special prosecutor appointed and overseen by that attorney general.
The term independent prosecution, with respect to a criminal investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force, includes using 1 or more of the following methods: (A) Using an agency or civilian review board that investigates and independently reviews all officer use-of-force allegations. (B) Assigning the attorney general of the State in which the alleged crime was committed to conduct the criminal investigation and prosecution. (C) Adopting a procedure under which an automatic referral is made to a special prosecutor appointed and overseen by the attorney general of the State in which the alleged crime was committed.
Another permitted method would use agreements between law enforcement agencies. Under those agreements, another agency would conduct the criminal investigation and report to the state attorney general on whether the deadly force was appropriate and whether the attorney general should take action.
(D) Having law enforcement agencies agree to and implement memoranda of understanding with other law enforcement agencies under which the other law enforcement agencies— (i) shall conduct the criminal investigation; and (ii) upon conclusion of the criminal investigation, shall file a report with the attorney general of the State containing a determination regarding whether— (I) the use of deadly force was appropriate; and (II) any action should be taken by the attorney general of the State.
A state could also use an independent prosecutor. For this option, the prosecutor could neither live nor work in the county where the alleged crime occurred and could not be someone who would ordinarily handle the prosecution as part of their duties.
(E) Using an independent prosecutor.
The term independent prosecutor means, with respect to a criminal investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force, a prosecutor who— (A) does not live or work in the same county as the county in which the alleged crime was committed; and (B) would not be involved in the prosecution in the ordinary course of that prosecutor’s duties.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on October 1, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T19:00:40Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No spending directed to a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This text-level conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. General program eligibility and routine administration were not treated as targeted benefits. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI