Since returning to office, the Trump administration has significantly reduced federal funding and support for gun violence prevention programs, shifting the federal approach from a public health focus to one emphasizing law enforcement and expanded firearms rights. This change has affected multiple agencies across the government and marks a departure from policies enacted under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Early in his term, President Donald Trump closed the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, initiated reviews of Biden-era firearms policies, and issued an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights. The Justice Department has also filed lawsuits against Virginia and California, challenging their state-level gun ownership restrictions, marking its first affirmative litigation in favor of expanding gun rights, according to constitutional law experts.

The reduction in prevention funding has had a tangible impact on local organizations. The Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative, which operated under the Department of Justice during the Biden administration, saw a funding cut of approximately $150 million. Advocates warn this shift has forced many groups to curtail services, lay off staff, or close entirely, leaving law enforcement-centered strategies focused on policing and weapons seizures as the primary response to gun violence.

Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that these policies have contributed to improving public safety while eliminating what they consider wasteful or ineffective programs. White House officials point to a decline in violent crime rates in 2025, citing data from the Council on Criminal Justice that shows decreases in murder and overall violent crime in 40 major cities compared to previous years, including pre-pandemic levels.

However, public health advocates emphasize that violence prevention programs based in hospitals and trauma centers have proven effective in reducing retaliatory violence and repeat injuries. Fatimah Loren Dreier, executive director of the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, reported that her organization was forced to lay off 20% of its staff after federal funding cuts, despite evidence that hospitals’ intervention programs have contributed to significant declines in violent injury recidivism in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships also faced severe funding reductions, losing $18.5 million last year and issuing its last grants in September 2024. The administration criticized the center as serving “radical activists” and highlighted groups dealing with violence against LGBTQ individuals, signaling a political motive behind the defunding.

Within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Division of Violence Prevention has been substantially downsized. Nonetheless, recent government notices suggest plans for future violence prevention research are underway, though these do not currently mention firearms specifically.

In addition to cutting funds, the administration has suppressed federally funded reports aimed at reducing gun-related injuries. After passage of a bipartisan gun safety bill in 2022 that included funding for so-called red flag laws—allowing courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed dangerous—the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a report assessing the effectiveness of these laws. The report was publicly available under the previous administration but was subsequently removed from government websites after President Trump took office. It remains accessible only through limited external channels.

Experts involved with the report express concern over the suppression of research they say saves lives. Jeffrey W. Swanson, lead author of the report and a mental health and gun violence researcher at Duke University, stated that the American public deserves access to federally funded scientific findings without political interference.

The administration maintains that its policies are fiscally responsible and enhance public safety. Meanwhile, gun violence prevention advocates contend that the rollback of evidence-based programs and public health strategies could undermine efforts to reduce firearm-related injuries and deaths nationwide.