In the wake of a devastating shooting at Minneapolis' Annunciation Catholic Church on August 27, 2025, where two children lost their lives and 21 others were injured, the Trump administration is reportedly considering a controversial policy: restricting the right of transgender Americans to own firearms. The shooter, identified by police as 23-year-old Robin Westman, a transgender woman, died by suicide at the scene, setting off a firestorm of debate and internal discussions at the highest levels of the Justice Department, according to reports from CNN and the New York Post.
Senior officials at the Justice Department are said to be weighing the possibility of using their rulemaking authority to declare transgender people—specifically those diagnosed with gender dysphoria—as mentally ill, thereby stripping them of their Second Amendment rights. As CNN reported, an unnamed Justice Department official described the goal as aiming "to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell."
The proposal, which has not yet been formally introduced, would mark a dramatic escalation in federal efforts to restrict the rights of transgender people. Critics say it is the most direct federal attack on transgender rights to date, building on a series of Trump administration policies that have already banned trans people from military service, forced federal prisons to house inmates by their sex assigned at birth, and issued executive orders restricting gender-affirming care for minors. As TIME noted, a coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in August challenging the administration's campaign against gender-affirming healthcare, arguing it amounts to a de facto national prohibition.
Yet the legal footing for such a firearms restriction appears shaky at best. Under current federal law—specifically, 18 USC 922(g)(4)—it is a felony for anyone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" to possess a firearm. This law requires a judicial finding or court order, not a blanket administrative declaration. As the New York Post and CNN both point out, the proposal under discussion would attempt to bypass Congress and the courts, imposing a new category of "prohibited persons" by bureaucratic fiat.
Legal experts are skeptical. Recent federal court decisions have held that categorical bans on gun ownership, without individualized assessment of dangerousness, are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that any restriction must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Multiple appellate courts have since ruled that only those deemed dangerous on an individualized basis can be disarmed. As U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick noted in a 2023 decision, "History and tradition would limit disarmament to dangerous lunatics." Even bans with statutory basis may be unconstitutional if applied without specific evidence of risk.
Gun rights advocates are alarmed by the prospect of such a sweeping administrative move. Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education at the Second Amendment Foundation, wrote on X, "I don’t buy that this is real. In the off chance it is, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. And also without any legal basis." Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, added, "Anti-gunners have long weaponized the ‘mental defective’ gun ban to include veterans & anyone with a ‘mental illness,’" but noted that the legal definition is much narrower than what is being proposed.
The proposal's immediate impetus was the high-profile Minneapolis shooting, but the response from some conservative allies and right-wing media has focused less on gun access or violence prevention and more on the gender identity of the perpetrator. Matt Walsh, a commentator at the Daily Wire, posted, "when you affirm the perverse fantasies of sick and delusional people—and you do it systematically, at scale—you are creating precisely this kind of catastrophe. It was inevitable." However, experts and advocates caution that there is no evidence transgender people are more prone to violence. Mark Bryant, executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, told CNN that out of more than 5,700 mass shootings in the U.S. since 2013, only five involved confirmed transgender shooters. In fact, a UCLA School of Law Williams Institute study found that transgender people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than cisgender people.
The American Psychiatric Association recognizes gender dysphoria as a mental health diagnosis, but being transgender itself is not a mental illness. Many transgender people do not experience gender dysphoria, and some people who are not transgender do experience it. Critics argue that the administration’s approach conflates identity with pathology in a way that is both medically and legally dubious.
On the political front, the move has drawn sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and civil rights groups. Laurel Powell, director of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, told ABC News, “The Constitution isn’t a privilege reserved for the few; it guarantees basic rights to all. Transgender people are your neighbors, classmates, family members, and friends—and we deserve the full protection of our nation's laws, not anti-American nonsense from the White House. If rights can be stripped from one group simply because of who they are, they can be stripped from anyone.”
Harvard Law School’s Alejandra Caraballo voiced concern on Bluesky, warning, “The Trump administration is moving to strip trans people of their 2nd amendment rights. Nothing good ever comes out of an authoritarian regime stripping a minority group of owning guns.” Caraballo also told CNN that government agencies could be used to identify and target transgender people, setting a dangerous precedent for other groups with non-disqualifying mental health concerns.
Despite the heated rhetoric, the White House has attempted to downplay the immediacy of the proposal. A White House official confirmed to the Washington Post that the discussions are ongoing but said the proposal is "not on the docket" in the Oval Office. The Justice Department told news outlets it 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.”
Meanwhile, gun rights groups and many Republican lawmakers remain wary of any policy that restricts gun ownership based on mental health, citing due process concerns. Red flag laws, which allow for temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a risk, at least involve judicial review and an adversarial process. The proposed rule, by contrast, would presume anyone with a particular diagnosis is too dangerous to own firearms, with no opportunity for individualized assessment or appeal.
As the debate unfolds, experts predict any attempt to enact such a rule would face swift and significant legal challenges. The courts have so far been clear: the Constitution does not allow for rights to be stripped from entire categories of people absent individualized findings of danger. For now, the fate of the proposal—and the rights of transgender Americans—hangs in the balance as the Justice Department weighs its next move.
