News that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is considering a plan to ban transgender Americans from owning firearms has sparked a storm of controversy, drawing fierce opposition from across the political spectrum—especially from groups typically aligned with Republican administrations on gun rights. The proposal, reportedly in its early stages, follows a tragic mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, allegedly committed by a transgender woman. This single incident has been seized upon by conservative voices to push for new restrictions, despite a lack of evidence linking transgender identity to violent crime.
According to CNN and The New York Post, senior officials at the Justice Department are exploring ways to define being transgender as a mental illness, potentially using existing regulations to prevent trans individuals from possessing firearms. Under current federal law, only those deemed “mentally defective” or committed to a mental institution by a judge can be stripped of their gun rights. A Justice Department spokesperson told The Independent, “The DOJ is actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen from individuals with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders. No specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time.”
Yet the reaction from the nation’s most powerful gun rights organizations has been swift and unequivocal. The National Rifle Association (NRA), long considered a stalwart ally of Republican presidents, declared, “The Second Amendment isn’t up for debate. The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms. NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.”
Gun Owners of America echoed this sentiment, stating that it “opposes any and all gun bans. Full stop.” The group further criticized the notion of expanding the ‘mental defective’ category, warning that such measures could “not only block them from purchasing firearms but could result in door-to-door gun confiscation from that new category of individuals.” The National Association for Gun Rights went even further, with its president warning, “As history proves, any new rules the government invents today will be abused against ill-favored communities, including conservatives and law-abiding gun owners, tomorrow.”
Legal experts and activists have also weighed in. Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education at the Second Amendment Foundation, labeled the proposal “blatantly unconstitutional” and lacking “any legal basis.” Moros remarked on social media, “I think every major gun rights org has now spoken against this trans gun ban idea. To the extent it was a trial balloon, we all hit it like a clay pigeon.” The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called for restraint, stating, “We needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.”
Critics argue that the administration’s approach is both cynical and dangerous. As The Intercept reported, the effort is seen as a transparent attempt to vilify trans people as an inherent public threat based on a single incident, while ignoring the broader reality of gun violence in America. Since 2013, there have been more than 5,700 mass shootings in the United States, with only five involving transgender perpetrators. The vast majority are committed by cisgender men, and many politically motivated attacks have been linked to far-right extremists.
Transgender Americans, meanwhile, face disproportionate risks. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that trans people are more than four times as likely to be victims of violent crimes, including rape and sexual assault, compared to the general population. Far-right militias have increasingly targeted LGBTQ+ events, with some trans and queer communities relying on armed antifascist groups for protection against harassment and violence. “If there is any group in the US for whom the right to armed self-defense should be protected, it is trans people—particularly trans women of color,” The Intercept noted.
Trans rights activists warn that framing gender dysphoria as a mental illness to justify a gun ban could have far-reaching consequences beyond firearm ownership. Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School, explained, “Such a sweeping determination would not only have repercussions for gun ownership but also employment, benefits, access to bank accounts, professional licenses etc. Determinations of mental incompetence can lead to the loss of professional licenses such as law, teaching, and medical licenses.” Caraballo argued that such a policy would amount to “effectively purging trans people from society writ large and starting the process of mass institutionalization.”
The Trump administration’s record on transgender rights has been marked by a series of restrictive directives. Since taking office, President Trump has issued executive orders erasing federal recognition of trans people, restricted access to gender-affirming healthcare, and banned trans athletes from competing in women’s sports. The Department of Defense has discharged thousands of trans service members, claiming that people with gender dysphoria are “incompatible” with military service. These moves have drawn widespread condemnation from civil rights groups and medical professionals alike.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo circulated earlier this year, emphasized the Department of Justice’s commitment to defending the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Yet the current proposal seems to contradict this stated commitment. Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, called on federal agencies to “stop chasing headlines on the back of the Second Amendment and focus on preserving and protecting gun rights so that law-abiding Americans can defend their loved ones from violent nutcases, criminals, and gang members.” The Firearms Policy Coalition warned that if the administration “unwisely and immorally chooses to wield the force of government in conflict with the Constitution, federal law, or our values, FPC will take aggressive action to defend the rights of peaceable people, just as we have many times before.”
Some see the administration’s actions as part of a broader pattern of authoritarianism and exclusion. The Intercept described the situation as “a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government,” pointing to the appointment of loyalists in key positions and the targeting of vulnerable communities as evidence of a deeper erosion of democratic norms. The logic, critics say, is reminiscent of historical gun control measures used to disempower marginalized groups, such as the 1967 Mulford Act in California, which was passed in response to the Black Panther Party’s armed patrols against police brutality.
While the Department of Justice insists that no final decision has been made, the public debate has already highlighted the deep divisions—and unexpected alliances—emerging over the issue. For now, the fate of transgender Americans’ Second Amendment rights hangs in the balance, as the nation waits to see whether the administration will proceed with a policy that has united gun rights advocates and civil liberties groups in rare opposition.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the proposed ban has sparked a reckoning over whose rights are truly protected under the Constitution, and what it means to belong in the American body politic.
