President Trump personally decided that his Justice Department would not appeal a federal ruling that gutted National Firearms Act restrictions on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns, according to CBS News, which reported on Thursday, September 17, citing multiple sources. Trump also assured several Republican members of Congress that he would make sure the department did not contest the decision.
He did it over the objections of lawyers inside his own government. CBS reported that some career and politically appointed Justice Department lawyers disagree with the ruling and have warned that it is “already beginning to adversely impact federal firearms prosecutions.” A Justice Department official told CBS the department does not plan to appeal.
How a tax cut became a gun-rights win
The ruling came on August 5 from U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee. The consolidated cases were brought by 15 Republican-led states along with gun rights groups and individuals, including Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation.
The legal logic is elegant. The National Firearms Act of 1934 has long been defended as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. For decades it imposed a $200 tax on making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and suppressors, and wrapped that tax in a web of registration and permitting requirements. Then Congress, in the One Big Beautiful Bill that Trump signed in 2025, zeroed out that $200 tax.
No tax, no taxing power. Hendrix concluded that because the law no longer raises revenue from those firearms, “its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power.” The permitting provisions for machine guns remain intact, and the ruling’s relief applies to the plaintiffs, including current and future members of the plaintiff groups.
The ruling was set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, August 13, unless the government sought emergency relief. The Justice Department let that deadline pass without filing, saying in a statement that it “respects Americans’ Second Amendment rights and is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.” The government still has until October 5 to file a regular appeal. According to CBS, Trump has now settled that question.
The Al Capone routine
Gun control groups responded as expected. Emma Brown of GIFFORDS called the decision a “failure to defend public safety” and warned it could “bring us back to the days of Al Capone.” When the ruling first came down, GIFFORDS Law Center chief counsel Adam Skaggs said, “Congress didn’t eliminate these dangers — it eliminated a tax,” and called the result “exactly the outcome the gun lobby wanted.” Brady Campaign president Kris Brown said in August that the Justice Department “had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”
Here is what that rhetoric leaves out. Suppressors are hearing-protection devices, not gangland death rays. Short-barreled rifles and shotguns are ordinary firearms with shorter barrels. And the White House has been explicit that nothing about who may legally own a gun has changed. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place,” a spokesperson said.
In other words, a felon who could not legally buy a gun last month still cannot buy one today. What has changed is that a law-abiding citizen who wants a suppressor to protect his hearing, or a shorter rifle for home defense, no longer has to navigate a federal permitting regime that was built on a tax Congress already repealed.
The duty-to-defend argument
Critics of Trump’s decision argue the Justice Department has a long-standing obligation to defend acts of Congress in court, and Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators at his confirmation hearing that the department was “presently defending the NFA against constitutional challenges.” Some gun rights advocates have their own worry: because the law itself remains on the books and the relief is tied to specific plaintiffs, a future administration could try to resume enforcement.
Those are fair points about process. But the duty to defend has never meant a duty to defend every law no matter what a federal court finds. When Congress itself removes the constitutional foundation a statute was standing on, an administration is entitled to decide that the statute should not be propped back up. That is what Trump appears to have decided, and he told Republican lawmakers so directly.
Why it matters
Gun owners have heard plenty of promises from Republican politicians who then let federal agencies do the opposite. In this case, the agency’s own lawyers reportedly wanted a rematch, and the president said no. Fifteen states and the gun rights movement won this fight in court. According to CBS, Trump has made sure his own government does not quietly hand the win back.
His own lawyers wanted a rematch on the National Firearms Act, and Trump told them no.
Sources
- PJ Media: Trump Pulls Rank on DOJ in Major Gun Rights Fight (Sept. 17, 2026)
- The New Republic: Trump Tells DOJ to Back Off Case Making Getting the Worst Guns Easier (Sept. 18, 2026)
- The Truth About Guns: Trump tells DOJ don't appeal the silencer NFA ruling (Sept. 18, 2026)
- New York Times via Boston Globe: Trump administration lets key gun law lapse following court ruling (Aug. 13, 2026)
- GIFFORDS: Giffords reacts to federal court striking down background checks for firearm silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns (Aug. 5, 2026)
More from The Rothman Report
Netanyahu Answers Obama’s Belfast Attack: ‘We’re Not the Belgians in the Congo, We’re Jews in Judea’
Lifelong Democrat Sheriff Quits the Party After Locals Told Him to Leave for Backing Rogers and James
Taco Bell Coworker’s Tip Stopped a Self-Described Neo-Nazi’s Alleged Plot Against an Aurora Hindu Temple