In the days following a tragic mass shooting at a Minneapolis church in August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly began preliminary discussions about a controversial—and, as many argue, unconstitutional—policy: banning transgender individuals from purchasing firearms. The idea, first reported by the conservative news outlet The Daily Wire, ignited a firestorm of debate across the political spectrum and exposed unexpected fault lines within the Trump administration’s own coalition.
The Minneapolis shooting, perpetrated by Robin Westman—a transgender individual—left two children dead and at least 17 others injured. According to The Associated Press, Westman’s firearms had been legally purchased. The horror of the attack spurred DOJ officials to brainstorm ways to prevent similar tragedies, with some conversations reportedly involving the Office of Legal Counsel and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As Fox News reported, these internal meetings were in their infancy, with no concrete steps taken. Still, the mere possibility of such a sweeping ban set off alarm bells among both civil rights advocates and some of the nation’s most ardent defenders of gun rights.
GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, two prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups, were quick to condemn the DOJ’s trial balloon. In a statement, GLAAD argued, “Transgender people are less than 2% of the overall population, yet four times as likely to be victims of crime. Everyone deserves to be themselves, be safe and be free from violence and discrimination. We all deserve leaders who prioritize keeping all of us safe and free.” Their message was clear: not only would such a ban be discriminatory, but it would also further endanger a community already at heightened risk.
But the backlash didn’t stop with progressive organizations. In a twist that caught many observers off guard, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—long a staunch ally of conservative causes—issued a forceful statement in opposition to the proposed ban. “The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms,” the group declared. “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.”
Other gun rights groups echoed the NRA’s stance. Gun Owners of America (GOA) posted on X, “GOA opposes any and all gun bans. Full stop.” The group’s senior vice president, Erich Pratt, added, “Gun Owners of America does not compromise with our support for the right of all people to keep and bear arms.” Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), also voiced opposition, warning that labeling people “mentally defective” as a means to strip them of gun rights would violate due process.
For many in the gun rights community, the issue at stake was less about transgender identity and more about the dangerous precedent of allowing the executive branch to unilaterally revoke constitutional rights from any group. As one commentator noted in the Los Angeles Times, “Whatever one thinks about transgenderism, or even the concept of ‘trans-terrorism’ as pushed by the administration and various MAGA influencers, the idea that the executive branch can unilaterally deprive a class of people—no matter how disfavored—of a constitutional right is worth notice.” The piece drew a sharp analogy: if the president could announce that transgender people no longer have the right to bear arms, what would stop a future administration from stripping other groups of their First Amendment rights?
The DOJ, for its part, tried to tamp down the controversy. A spokesperson told Fox News, “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.” Still, sources indicated that some officials were considering ways to prevent “mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria” from obtaining firearms while “unstable and unwell.”
Legal experts and advocates were quick to point out that current law already allows for restrictions on gun ownership in cases where a court has deemed someone mentally incompetent—a framework reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2024 case United States v. Rahimi. However, simply identifying as transgender or being diagnosed with gender dysphoria does not, in itself, meet that legal threshold. As LGBTQ advocates underscored, the vast majority of mass shootings in the U.S. are perpetrated by men who are not transgender, and transgender individuals are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
Some supporters of the proposed ban pointed to a perceived “pattern” of mass shootings by transgender individuals. In addition to Westman’s attack, they cited Audrey “Aiden” Hale’s 2023 shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville and Alec McKinney’s involvement in the STEM School shooting in Colorado. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times editorialized, “No matter how you crunch the numbers, the idea that transgender people as a class should be denied their gun rights based on five confirmed transgender perpetrators is ludicrous.” The piece further observed that roughly one in four mass shooters have military experience—a demographic that has never faced blanket restrictions on gun ownership, despite such statistics.
The controversy also highlighted the Trump administration’s responsiveness to social media and partisan media outlets. As the Los Angeles Times noted, “The Trump administration is terminally online. It takes its cues from social media and sites like the Daily Wire. That the DOJ and the Daily Wire were so swept up in the feeding frenzy that it considered an obviously unconstitutional policy—even for clicks—would be surprising were it not so, well, unsurprising these days.”
Underlying the NRA’s opposition was a strategic awareness that short-term victories in the culture war could have long-term consequences for constitutional rights. As one commentator put it, “Precedents established by a friendly president can be exploited by a future unfriendly one. A momentary victory in the culture war is not worth the price.”
The broader context is a Trump administration that, since returning to office, has taken a hard line on transgender issues—removing transgender people from military service, limiting recognition on federal documents, opposing transgender participation in female sports, and curtailing access to gender-affirming surgery. Yet, on the question of gun rights, the administration found itself at odds with some of its most reliable allies.
In the end, the DOJ’s proposal appears unlikely to move forward, derailed by constitutional concerns and a rare coalition of civil rights and gun rights advocates. If anything, the episode serves as a reminder that solutions to America’s mass shooting crisis are unlikely to emerge from policies rooted in panic or partisanship. As the debate recedes, it leaves behind a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing constitutional principles for fleeting political gain.
