Gun rights advocates are sounding alarms about a Department of Justice (DOJ) plan to merge the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). They fear this could be misused by a gun-control-friendly administration. Some Republican lawmakers seem to share these concerns.
The DOJ contends that combining these agencies could enhance their effectiveness in tackling violent crime and drug trafficking. However, Second Amendment supporters caution that such a merger could easily be abused by hostile regimes.
This proposal was included in the DOJ’s budget request for the 2026 fiscal year. There’s talk that the merger could kick off on October 1, 2025. Details were first shared in a DOJ memo back in March.
Gun owners recently scored a narrow win when the House rejected Attorney General Pam Bondy’s merger proposal during budgeting discussions. Similar pushback came from Senate budget planners on July 18, with Senator Chris Van Hollen indicating that Congressional consent would be necessary for any merger.
Bondi defended the merger during a House Budget Committee hearing in June, stating that it would simplify regulatory processes and suggesting that “drugs and guns go together.”
The DOJ hasn’t provided any updates regarding the merger plans or rationale for why it might be beneficial.
Advocates for gun rights remain skeptical of the DOJ’s assertion that such mergers promote government efficiency. Adam Kraut from the Second Amendment Foundation argued that merging agencies with different missions wouldn’t streamline operations. He noted that the overlap mainly involves the issue of firearms in criminal contexts.
During recent budgeting sessions, the House not only blocked the merger but also outlined plans for significant budget cuts to the ATF. On social media, an advocacy group highlighted these as victories against the proposed merger and related policies.
Under the Trump administration, reforms like the rollback of Biden’s strict policies on federal firearms licenses aimed to bolster gun rights. Activists worry that a future merger could empower government resources to more effectively undermine those rights.
Concerns about the merger are amplified by fears that it could serve as a mechanism for increased gun control. In a letter to Bondi, groups like the Second Amendment Foundation and the Gun Owners of America expressed worries that the merger could act as a “Trojan horse” for more restrictions on gun ownership.
Judging from past actions, there’s skepticism about combining the ATF and DEA, especially since cooperative efforts between these agencies have not always yielded positive outcomes. For example, during the Obama administration’s controversial operations, firearms were allowed to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, leading to tragic consequences.
Expectations surrounding the merger are also met with concerns over how it could potentially allocate more influence to drug lobbyists, which could, in turn, disadvantage gun rights groups.
Gun rights lobbyists reportedly spend considerably less—$7 million—on lobbying compared to pharmaceutical companies, which typically invest over $226 million. This disparity is raising eyebrows among advocates who argue that further merging administrative powers could further weaken their influence.
Groups favoring stricter gun control have voiced their own concerns regarding budget cuts that may impact government oversight of firearms. They view these cuts as detrimental, especially to local law enforcement dependent on ATF resources.
Pro-gun activists assert that merging the ATF and DEA could primarily serve to target gun owners, raising alarms about possible future abuses. Bondi’s argument faced skepticism based on the ATF’s troubled history, which includes notable incidents involving aggressive enforcement tactics.
Activists also remind us that when administrative powers are combined, it opens the door for future misuse. There’s a sense of urgency to ensure safeguards are established against any potential hostile actions by future administrations.
