President Donald Trump has consistently failed to take action to improve public safety, particularly when it comes to addressing gun violence. Instead, the Trump administration has rolled back safety measures, prioritizing the interests of the gun industry over the protection of families and communities. These actions were frequently framed as efforts to safeguard Second Amendment rights1 or eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.2 In reality, they leave American citizens more vulnerable while empowering and enriching the very industry responsible for the proliferation of illegal firearms that are taking lives every day.
Less than a month into his second term, President Trump signed an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all firearm-related policies, rulemaking, and actions taken by the previous administration. The order instructs Bondi to “present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”3 Several of the policies mentioned in the executive order mirror the priorities of the gun industry lobbying groups, including relaxing enforcement oversight of gun dealers who willfully break the law and reversing efforts to prevent American firearms from reaching foreign adversaries.4
![]()
When the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to release a plan of action in the months following the issuance of the executive order, it became clear that those concerned about reducing gun violence would need to pay close attention to the steady drip of news about reversing regulations and curbing enforcement of existing gun laws. Below are examples of how Trump’s DOJ has undermined violence prevention efforts, underscoring the administration’s alignment with the corporate gun lobby.
1. Allowing prohibited persons such as convicted domestic abusers to buy guns
Federal law prohibits people convicted of felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms, but the Trump administration has taken rare steps to restore the gun rights of prohibited individuals.5 On March 7, 2025, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer was dismissed a day after refusing to recommend that Mel Gibson have his gun rights restored.6 The famous actor attempted to buy a firearm but failed a federal background check because of a domestic violence conviction.7 Recognizing that a woman is five times more likely to be killed if her abuser has access to a gun,8 Oyer said she could not recommend Gibson get his gun rights back.9 “This isn’t political,” Oyer told The New York Times. “This is a safety issue.”10 The unusual way Gibson’s gun rights were restored also undermines the effectiveness and legitimacy of the federal agency responsible for protecting public safety. Oyer wrote “what is shameful is using the justice system to do political favors for celebrities and friends.”11
More details on the Gibson case
In 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest following an incident at his Malibu, California, home that his former girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, says left her with a black eye and two broken teeth.12 Grigorieva said Gibson punched her and threatened her with a gun as she held her infant daughter. Gibson is heard saying she “deserved” the assault on a tape that was later released.13
The DOJ should not make decisions affecting public safety based on who has close relationships with the administration. For example, Gibson submitted his request to restore his firearm rights two weeks after President Trump named him a special ambassador to Hollywood. The day after Oyer was dismissed, Gibson was seen with FBI Director Kash Patel at a UFC event. Despite the DOJ warning her not to testify before Congress about her firing and almost sending armed U.S. marshals to her house, she testified: “I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice.”14
Gibson’s case was just a high-profile start to a larger effort that seems to be making it easier for people with criminal records to buy guns. Prohibited persons have been able to petition the attorney general to restore firearm access since 1968.15 This authority was later delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) until 1992, when Congress effectively ended the resource-intensive program with questionable results by zeroing out its funding.16 On March 20, 2025, the Department of Justice published an interim final rule taking back the authority it had delegated to the ATF to restore firearm access.17
On April 29, 2025, the DOJ published a formal notice saying Gibson and nine other individuals had their federal firearm privileges restored by the attorney general.18 While it is important to have a process for individuals who no longer pose a public safety risk to regain their firearm rights, it requires careful review that prioritizes safety over any other factors. Oyer has communicated in reports that prior to her dismissal, she was alarmed that officials pushed for an automated system where a computer program made decisions rather than employees reviewing individual cases.19 A key example of the Trump administration’s disregard for public safety is that they have allowed individuals who have demonstrated a history of violence, including those convicted of domestic abuse, to more easily acquire firearms while enriching the gun industry.20
2. Reducing enforcement and accountability for rogue gun dealers
Ninety percent of crime guns in the United States can be traced back to just 5 percent of gun dealers.21 In recent years, ATF has made progress in holding accountable rogue gun dealers responsible for allowing illegal firearms to flow into American communities.22 Yet on April 7, 2025, Attorney General Bondi repealed the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy, a Biden-era policy directing ATF to revoke the licenses of the small number of gun dealers who egregiously break the law by falsifying records and not running background checks.23
ATF is the only federal agency that ensures gun dealers are not illegally selling guns to individuals prohibited from having firearms or allowing the diversion of the guns they sell to the illegal market. ATF, long underresourced, has been unable to achieve its goal of inspecting federal firearms licensees (FFLs) every three years.24 Most dealers are inspected only once a decade, and consequences are inadequate when violations are found.25 Revocations of licenses are exceedingly rare, even when dealers repeatedly violate federal law. And while ATF inspects only 5 to 7 percent of FFLs each year, violations are found during a majority of these inspections.26 However, less than 1 percent (0.4 percent) of inspections in fiscal year 2021 resulted in a dealer’s license revocation.27
License revocations increased significantly following the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy’s requirement that ATF revoke licenses when it discovers certain serious and willful violations, such as selling to prohibited purchasers. In 2022, revoked licenses increased to 90, or 1.3 percent of inspected dealers.28 In 2023, compliance inspections for firearm dealers resulted in recommendations to revoke 170 licenses,29 the highest number since tracking began in 2005.30 This record was surpassed in fiscal year 2024, when ATF revoked 195 licenses, representing more than 2 percent of inspections.31 Despite this being called the “zero tolerance” policy, only the most egregious offenders had their licenses revoked.
Repealing this rule benefits two parties: The gun sellers knowingly endangering communities, and the gun CEOs getting rich off of weapons sales to criminals.
GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown
The DOJ’s revocation of the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy does not seem to have anything to do with the Second Amendment or protecting the rights of gun owners. Instead, it appears that the Trump administration’s actions are a gift to a gun industry that does not want any regulations or enforcement, so that it can profit from the diversion of guns to the underground market.32 By ending this successful policy that held accountable the small number of dealers responsible for selling guns to traffickers and people who want to commit violent crimes, cities and counties should expect more illegal guns and violent crime.33 As Emma Brown, executive director at GIFFORDS, said: “Repealing this rule benefits two parties: The gun sellers knowingly endangering communities, and the gun CEOs getting rich off of weapons sales to criminals. It absolutely does not benefit the American people.”34
The Trump administration is sending a clear message to reckless gun dealers: There are no consequences for breaking the law and selling guns to traffickers, straw purchasers, or people prohibited by law from possessing firearms. States should fill this oversight and enforcement gap by passing gun dealer code-of-conduct bills, requiring dealer licensing, and authorizing state police to conduct inspections of gun dealers.35
3. Diverting ATF resources from combating violent crime to immigration enforcement
Directing federal law enforcement agencies, including the ATF, to prioritize immigration enforcement comes at the expense of focusing on their intended mission of combating violent crime. Through collaborations with local and state law enforcement, ATF holds people accountable for committing serious violent offenses and trafficking guns and drugs into U.S. communities. This work contributed to the recent historic declines in gun violence across the country, along with increased investments in community violence intervention programs and improved social and economic stability.36
Despite successful efforts to make cities and rural communities safer, ATF has suffered budget cuts and is now being asked to do more with less.37 While the agency’s funding and staffing levels are expected to decrease, ATF has added immigration enforcement to its responsibilities. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a January 2025 directive reassigning federal law enforcement resources to assist in immigration enforcement, even against individuals without criminal records. DHS said it is “essential to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to carry out mass deportations.”38 However, this shift in focus will make U.S. communities less safe and less secure.39
Learn more
An estimated 150 ATF agents will be temporarily reassigned from their field offices to support the surge initiative at field offices near the southern border.40 By requiring the already understaffed agency to focus on immigration enforcement—the job of DHS and its component agencies—there are now fewer ATF agents and intelligence resources working in other communities to combat serious crime. In addition, many of the people targeted by immigration enforcement have no criminal record and have been contributing positively to their communities for years.41
Moving agents out of their field offices to participate in temporary surges in new locations makes it harder for them to build trust and relationships with local law enforcement and community members, leading to fewer investigative leads. While ATF does surge resources when cities are facing increases in violent crime, the agency initiates the targeted operations to advance its mission of working with local law enforcement to disrupt criminal activity and apprehend offenders. ATF lacks the required resources to accomplish this goal, let alone do the job of DHS. Moreover, even the temporary reallocation of resources should be based on crime data, not political maneuvering. Pulling resources away from apprehending gun traffickers to focus on immigration enforcement for people who do not pose a threat to public safety undermines gun industry accountability and crime prevention efforts.
4. Threatening ATF’s independence and survival
Beyond the temporary immigration enforcement reassignment, there are much bigger concerns about ATF’s independence and survival. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were alarmed when CNN reported there was a plan to temporarily reassign as many as 1,000 of the roughly 2,600 ATF agents to the FBI.42 According to CNN, FBI officials were backing away from aspects of the plan after the story resulted in pushback from Republican allies.43
Days later, The Associated Press reported on a memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche proposing to merge the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and ATF “to achieve efficiencies in resources, case deconfliction, and regulatory efforts.”44 Speculation that such a merger would lead to fewer federal law enforcement agents intensified when Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes asked acting DEA Administrator Derek Maltz for additional federal agents for a task force to combat violent drug trafficking operations in Arizona.45 Mayes said Maltz replied that he was not sure that ATF would even exist in the coming months.46
Adding to the confusion at ATF is the lack of stable leadership. In 2022, Steven Dettelbach became the first Senate-confirmed ATF director since 2015.47 When he resigned in January 2025, Deputy Director Marvin Richardson was in charge until late February, when Trump named FBI Director Kash Patel as acting ATF director.48 In response, the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force said: “[I]t is unconscionable that someone without experience fighting crime, responding to mass shootings or confronting domestic terrorism has been named as ATF’s Acting Director.”49
It was reported in April 2025 that U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll replaced a largely absent Patel as ATF acting director and that Richardson was told to quit or be fired, ending an ATF career that began in 1989.50 Reuters reported Driscoll would hold both roles, adding:
The leadership vacuum at the agency tasked with investigating firearm, bomb and arson-related crimes has worried current and former law enforcement officials who say its weakened state could impede efforts to protect public safety and make it more vulnerable to regulatory cuts that could hinder its ability to investigate violent gun-wielding criminals.51
ATF needs the resources and independent leadership to successfully partner with local law enforcement to keep our communities safe. Despite Trump saying he wants to support and protect law enforcement, his interference with federal law enforcement suggests he cares more about pleasing the gun lobby.52
Conclusion
Now is not the time for federal law enforcement to pull back from enforcing gun laws. Thankfully, violent crime is declining, but gun violence is still far too high.53 To hold individuals and gun dealers accountable when they break the law and prevent violence from occurring in the first place, ATF needs additional resources and strong, independent leadership.
Making matters worse, the Trump administration, which is failing to enforce federal gun laws, is expected to revoke popular reforms and reverse the government’s position in ongoing litigation—at the behest of the corporate gun lobby.54 The Department of Justice is reviewing federal gun safety rules, including rethinking the government’s stance on the “stabilizing braces” regulation that determines firearm classification and clarifying who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms aimed at reducing the number of guns sold without background checks, a key component of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.55 Meanwhile, Attorney General Bondi announced she would chair a new Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force to “combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda.”56
If the Trump administration declines to defend Biden-era executive actions and rulemaking from legal challenges, the gun lobby will see record profits at the expense of cities and rural areas, which will suffer increases in crime and gun violence.57