Washington, D.C. is once again at the center of a heated national debate over gun rights, public safety, and the scope of federal authority, following a dramatic policy shift by the Trump administration that has left residents, lawmakers, and legal experts scrambling to understand the implications for the nation’s capital.
On August 20, 2025, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced that registered rifle and shotgun owners in D.C. would no longer face felony charges for carrying their weapons. The move, revealed in a memo and confirmed by Pirro in statements to the Washington Post, comes after the Justice Department and the solicitor general determined that the District’s longstanding prohibitions on registered but non-permitted rifle and shotgun owners run afoul of recent Supreme Court rulings.
The policy change lands in a city already under heavy federal surveillance. Federal police and National Guard troops have been deployed throughout D.C. since early August, with the Trump administration citing safety concerns. Yet, the decision to relax enforcement of D.C.’s strict gun laws—laws that, until now, made it a felony to carry a concealed rifle or shotgun—has triggered accusations of hypocrisy and political maneuvering from across the aisle.
Tim Lauer, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Pirro, explained the administration’s stance: “In line with President Trump’s directive to make D.C. safe, U.S. Attorney Pirro has made it clear that the old way of doing things is unacceptable.” This, Lauer said, reflected a broader effort to align local law enforcement with the president’s vision for the capital.
But critics argue that the administration’s actions are less about safety and more about flexing federal muscle. Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, whose district borders Washington, D.C., did not mince words in his condemnation. “What better evidence could you ask for that Trump doesn’t care about preventing crime in D.C. than an outright refusal to enforce gun laws? This is exactly the behavior we should expect from a president who put criminals back on the street after Jan. 6, including some who carried firearms there illegally,” Beyer told Augusta Free Press. He went further, calling the federal presence an “unwanted and unjustified occupation” that puts Washingtonians at risk, and accused the administration of “signaling that carrying dangerous, illegal weapons here will be accepted by a government that pardons criminal activity carried out in Trump’s name.”
The legal rationale behind the shift is rooted in recent Supreme Court decisions. In the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the Court struck down D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense. More recently, the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision expanded gun owners’ rights, holding that the Constitution protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense and that gun regulations must align with the nation’s historical traditions.
“The D.C. law is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court’s holdings,” Pirro told the Washington Post, confirming the administration’s legal reasoning. She emphasized, however, that the new guidance “does not preclude the United States Attorney’s Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to D.C. Code 22-4503.” What it does preclude, Pirro clarified, is “a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun.”
Under D.C. law, open carry is prohibited and concealed-carry permits are required to leave home with a firearm—but such permits are not issued for shotguns or rifles. Until now, unlawfully carrying a registered long gun could result in a fine and up to five years in prison. The administration’s new policy, however, means that registered owners carrying their weapons without a permit will not face the felony charge previously associated with this act.
Pirro, a former judge known for her tough-on-crime reputation, was quick to insist that her office’s commitment to public safety remains unchanged. “Criminal culpability is not determined by the instruments people employ but by the intent and conduct of the actor,” she stated. “Crimes are intentional acts and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by my office regardless of what instruments of criminality are used. My job is to keep this city, its citizens, its businesses, and its visitors safe from harm and I will do that to the fullest extent of the law.”
Yet, the optics of the decision—coming at a time when federal law enforcement and National Guard troops patrol the city’s streets—have fueled suspicions about the administration’s true priorities. In a televised interview with News4 I-Team’s Ted Oberg, Pirro suggested that these federal forces could remain in D.C. until “there are no arrests to be made.” When pressed on what metric might signal a return to normalcy, Pirro responded, “How about when they make no arrests? Do you think that will ever happen?” Oberg pointed out the impossibility of such a standard, noting that “there’s no city in America. There’s no city in the world where that’s happened.”
Pirro replied, “Well, this is, I think, an example of what happens when you put power to the message. Cities don’t have the power that the president is investing in D.C.” Her comments underscored the extraordinary level of federal control currently exerted over the capital’s law enforcement.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, for her part, has called for an end to the federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department after 30 days, unless Congress authorizes an extension. However, she acknowledged that the presence of federal agents and National Guard troops is “a different conversation,” suggesting that the debate over local versus federal control is far from settled.
The Trump administration’s move has ignited passionate responses from all corners. Supporters argue that the policy brings D.C. into compliance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, ensuring that law-abiding gun owners are not unduly criminalized. Opponents, meanwhile, warn that the change will make the city less safe, especially when combined with a visible and, to some, intimidating federal presence on the streets.
As D.C. residents adjust to the new reality, questions remain about the long-term consequences of this policy shift. Will the relaxation of gun enforcement lead to more firearms in public spaces, or will it simply align the city’s laws with constitutional requirements? And how long will the National Guard and federal agents continue to patrol the capital, with no clear metric for their withdrawal?
For now, the only certainty is that Washington, D.C. stands at the crossroads of law, politics, and the ever-contentious debate over guns in America—a microcosm of the nation’s broader struggle to balance safety, rights, and the reach of government.
