Trump Administration Slices CDC’s Anti-Gun Operations

CDC Centers for Disease Control
Bigstock

Last week the Trump administration announced wide-ranging reforms to the embattled U.S. public health bureaucracy. According to an article from Politico, part of the reform effort is a “reduction in force that aims to cut 10,000” federal employees under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS is the parent organization for a host of government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The cuts to CDC included a reduction in force targeting the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Gun rights supporters may recognize the NCIPC as the epicenter of the CDC’s longstanding anti-gun efforts. The Associated Press lamented, “Many of the layoffs reported were in areas involving deaths and injuries from things other than infectious diseases. That included programs that track and prevent… gun violence.”

A reporter from the leftwing publication Mother Jones claimed to have spoken with some anonymous CDC employees, who shed further light on the Trump reforms. The Mother Jones item stated:

An employee I’ll call Amanda (she didn’t want me to use her name for fear of retribution) works in the Web-Based Injury and Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) a team within the Injury Center that is responsible for processing all the data around injuries, including both fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by guns. Her branch of 40 employees all received RIF notices. “The cost analysis, the return on investment, all of the non-fatal and fatal data processing that goes to our lobbyists, our congressmen, our decision-makers, senators—all of that is gone,” she said. [emphasis added]

Readers can decide for themselves what the CDC employee meant by “our lobbyists.” However, it’s clear the institutional gun control lobby is not happy with this development.

Gun control group Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Second Amendment-denying Legal Community Against Violence), weighed in with the predictable take that the Trump administration reform was a “reckless move puts us all at risk.”

Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) opined, “Working in tandem with the Trump Administration’s ‘guns everywhere’ agenda, these cuts are the latest action designed to curb our efforts to tackle gun violence.” The group even exploited the opportunity to encourage its followers to see if they could grab a few guns from the recently laid-off bureaucrats, stating: “As so many public servants feel the devastating effects of these layoffs, Brady underscores the importance of checking in on loved ones who are experiencing economic hardship and mental health crises, including asking about access to unsecured guns.”

The gun control lobby’s complaints were to be expected. The CDC and the broader public health community have a long history of gun control advocacy and has even sought to suppress research that runs counter to their anti-gun ideology.

In the early 1980s the CDC started to express an interest in curbing firearms.

In 1983, the CDC established its Violence Epidemiology Branch, which set forth to apply a “public-health approach” to what are more appropriately understood as criminal justice matters. Under this new rubric, firearms would be treated akin to germs transmitting a communicable disease. Of course, criminal violence perpetrated with firearms is best understood as a criminal justice issue and addressed by vigorously prosecuting violent perpetrators who misuse firearms.

In the December 1984 issue of Science, the CDC expressed its interest in targeting gun ownership. A CDC staffer who insisted on anonymity sorrowfully noted, “Because of the Reagan administration’s anti-gun-control stance, the CDC has tiptoed around the issue of gun control.” Making clear the agency’s desire to attack firearms, the source added, “The violence branch is in a fledgling state. If it steps too hard on the gun issue, it would be squashed in a heartbeat.”

Sniffing out the CDC’s motives from the start, NRA Information and Member Services characterized the article’s contents by explaining, “After losing numerous legislative fights in the gun control battle, handgun control groups now are trying an end-run political tactic in a new area—public health policy.”

Over the years the brazenness of HHS and the CDC’s anti-gun stance grew. HHS Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, head of the CDC’s parent agency, declared in 1990, “I want to do everything in my power to discourage the use and availability of handguns.”

The 1990s brought overt CDC collaboration with gun control activists.

In May 1993, CDC released a report titled “Injury Control in the 1990s: A National Plan for Action.” A portion titled “Support for the National Plan” explained that a host of “organizations participated in the development or review of the national plan” and listed Handgun Control, Inc. and CPGV as supporters of the document.

The CDC plan read like a gun-control lobby wish list, recommending, “New legislative and regulatory efforts to be considered are to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of handguns except in special circumstances; establish a national waiting period for all purchases of firearms, coupled with a mandatory criminal record background check; establish nationwide restrictive licensing of handgun owners whereby a handgun license would be granted only when a clear, legitimate need for possessing a handgun is demonstrated (e.g. for professional use).”

In 1994, CDC National Center for Injury Prevention Director Mark Rosenberg told The Washington Post of his intent to transform public perception of firearms in the same manner as had been done with cigarettes, by making guns “dirty, deadly—and banned.”

In 1995, the CDC bankrolled an anti-gun edition of the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter. The publication urged readers to engage in an array of anti-gun advocacy. This included commands to “put gun control on the agenda of your civic or professional organization,” “make your support for federal, state, and local gun laws known to your representatives,” and “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites.”

By 1996, Congress had seen enough taxpayer money wasted on political advocacy. At NRA’s urging, lawmakers added a simple amendment to federal law making clear that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Contrary to the media spin and the gun-control lobby’s wailing, the language didn’t restrict the CDC from studying “gun violence.” It did, however, prohibit the kind of gun-control advocacy the agency engaged in between 1983 and 1996.

However, in the years since the funding amendment the CDC worked its way back into the firearm issue. In 2021, while the agency was reeling from its lackluster performance during an actual communicable disease epidemic, the Biden administration sought to leverage the agency in its “whole-of-government” assault on firearms.

In August 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky sat down with CNN to announce the agency’s intent to target gun owners. Speaking about firearms, Walensky said, “I swore to the president and to this country that I would protect your health. This is clearly one of those moments, one of those issues that is harming America’s health.”

Then there are the CDC’s efforts to downplay research that runs counter to the agency’s traditional anti-gun narrative.

In early 1993, Florida State University professors of criminology Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz sought to measure the prevalence of defensive gun uses. The pair designed the National Self-Defense Survey and polled Americans by telephone on whether they had used a gun for self-defense.

The researchers published their results in an article titled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” which appeared in the Fall 1995 edition of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. The key finding was that the survey data indicated “each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans.”

Following Kleck and Gertz’s landmark study, from 1996 to 1998, CDC used its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to survey Americans about DGUs. Specifically, the CDC survey asked respondents, “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”

Despite conducting this interesting research, the agency didn’t report on their findings at the time. The CDC survey data finally came to light in 2018.

Analyzing the CDC survey along with his own research, Kleck found that the CDC data indicated that there are likely more than 1 million DGUs per year. In a September 2020 paper titled “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Prevalence of Defensive Gun Use?” Kleck explained, “Even when CDC, an organization perceived by some to be strongly ‘anti-gun,’ devised and conducted the surveys, their survey results implied huge estimates of defensive gun uses—over a million per year, far more than the number of violent crimes in which offenders used guns.”

Illustrating a continuing anti-gun bias, in 2023 information came to light about the CDC suppressing information about the prevalence of DGUs at the behest of gun control advocates.

In early 2022, reference to the Kleck study’s 2.5 million DGUs appeared on CDC’s website in a document titled “Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention,” as an answer to the questions “What is defensive gun use? How often does it occur?” However, in May 2022, estimates of the prevalence of DGUs were removed from the fact sheet.

According to firearms politics publication The Reload, this suppression of science occurred following a lobbying effort by gun-control advocates. The Reload article explained, “The lobbying campaign spanned months and culminated with a private meeting between CDC officials and three advocates last summer.” Illustrating the level of influence the anti-gun activists were able to exert, the piece noted, “Introductions from the White House and Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D.-Ill.) office helped the advocates reach top officials at the agency … .”

Gun owners should be encouraged by President Trump’s efforts to reform HHS and CDC and be hopeful that the recent reforms lead to the wayward public health bureaucracy focusing on confronting actual communicable disease rather than diminishing fundamental rights.

For more about CDC’s anti-gun history gun owners are encouraged to read ‘Trust the Science?‘ from NRA’s publications.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

21 thoughts on “Trump Administration Slices CDC’s Anti-Gun Operations”

  1. Even after watching the Democrat-seeded, deep state-pushed Russiagate conspiracy unfold, I had no idea that the entire government was filled with so many activists. I mostly trusted the CDC when Covid hit. That’s where I initially looked for good information. Wow, what an eye opener! Fire away!

    Also, recall the people that said Trump wasn’t any different from any other D or R politician. No one would have the guts to implement this level of change. They all talked a big game while running for office, but none delivered. They lied. Maybe they will have the courage going forward because one person has shown what is possible. For example, they’ve been pretending like border control was an impossible job since I’ve been alive. It was fixed immediately. Notice how there is less screeching about border control now compared to Trump’s first term. Finally, the Overton window has shifted in our favor. I think the same can be said about firearm ownership. The culture has changed.

    1. There are two types of people who go into government work: lazy pragmatists who want a low-effort, low-standard nothingburger job with good benefits and activist warriors who live every minute in a bug-eyed state of intense fury looking to use government as a hammer to beat society into a mold they’ve created in their own heads.

      1. I believe there is also a third class. Those individuals are willing to work hard and are motivated by a genuine desire to do worthwhile things. They are sincere, helpful, and well-meaning.I have met them at CDC, at FDA, and at EPA. They ARE a minority, and often are the reason anything good comes from these agencies – which does happen. However, their presence doesn’t prevent mission creep, over regulation, and the many other problems of agencies. If the agencies were kept small, held to their original reason for founding, and mostly consisted of staff and leadership like these people, there would be little problem. The issue is – as noted above – that government is a target for empire building bureaucrats who hire mostly the first and second categories of staff to grow a small office into a large one. The way to promotion in government is not to successfully complete the mission; rather, it is to expand and extend the mission to require more people, more money, and of course a more senior manager to handle it all. The reward structure is wrong in government. At all levels, including the elected ones.

    2. Dude, regarding a discussion we had on another article, it seems the Supreme Court is in agreement with my position that all people in the United States are afforded the due process protections in the constitution, including the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances:

      “While the Trump Administration succeeded in getting the lower-court rulings vacated, it suffered a potentially important setback by virtue of the Court’s ruling that migrants targeted for deportation under the AEA are entitled to due process:

      “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.“

      1. .40 cal Booger

        Yeah, that doesn’t work the way you think it does Myr49er.

        But anyway, now things can speed up…

        Bondi Vows More Deportations After Supreme Court Victory.

        “…
        The Supreme Court grants the Trump administration’s request to continue to remove noncitizens whom the government has designated as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

        ‘This was a huge, I mean monumental victory for President Trump. A total embarrassment for Judge Boasberg,’ Miller said Monday night. ‘Those monsters can now be hunted down and expelled from this country with speed, force, and efficiency.’
        …”

        https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/04/08/bondi-vows-more-deportations-after-supreme-court-victory-n2655184

        1. .40 cal Booger

          DOGE Official Confirms What We’ve Known All Along: Illegal Immigrants Are on Medicaid and Voting.

          https://redstate.com/beckynoble/2025/04/08/doge-official-confirms-details-of-what-weve-known-all-along-illegal-immigrants-on-medicaid-and-voting-n2187612

          “…
          Obama campaigned on sending illegal immigrants back and getting rid of government waste (essentially what DOGE is doing,) …
          …”

          https://redstate.com/beckynoble/2025/04/08/doge-official-confirms-details-of-what-weve-known-all-along-illegal-immigrants-on-medicaid-and-voting-n2187612

      2. Miner, refer back to said discussion to see that I was never against due process. As a matter of fact, I said they should bring him back and then deport him or imprison him the proper way. I DID say that I have no sympathy for lying, criminal illegals.

        1. .40 cal Booger

          @Dude

          He doesn’t understand that you were not advocating against due process. All he thinks about is what the left wing media tells him to think and do and say.

      3. Furthermore, the fact that you’re now pretending like this was the argument is another one of your famous straw man arguments. My problem stated from the beginning was the narrative the news media was trying to portray. They’ve been looking for a sympathetic figure to push this narrative of Trump snatching up innocent people (“Maryland father”) and deporting them. I have no sympathy for someone that admitted to entering the country illegally, especially when they are a current or former MS-13 gang member. Even if his story that got him the protection order is true (doubtful, or he would have given that as a reason for his asylum application), it is no longer relevant. Therefore, dissolving the protection order is a matter of going through the process. Either way you look at it, he has no right to stay in this country.

      4. .40 cal Booger

        Trump Stacks Wins as Commies Weep Into Their Soy Lattes. (Myr49er, go ahead and water down your soy latte with your tears).

        “The way Trump is fighting the globalists, you’d think they tried to bankrupt, imprison, and assassinate the man.

        One would think booting illegal immigrants who are members of a violent gang out of the country would be a no-brainer, but no-brain, communist judges believed otherwise, until the Supreme Court ruled that Trump can indeed boot the invaders under the Alien Enemies Act of 1796.

        Whereas Democrats are bemoaning the fact that our nation will lose a bunch of rapists and murderers, I am miffed that the vote came down to a mere 5-4 win. I expected the three apparatchik activist SCOTUS justices to vote for our nation’s downfall, but Amy Coney Barrett?

        Sadly, this decision didn’t come soon enough to save 13-year-old Oscar Hernandez …
        NEW: 13-year-old Oscar ‘Omar’ Hernandez was raped & murdered in Los Angeles last week.

        Police have just arrested 43-year-old Mario Edgardo Garcia-Aquino, an illegal alien from El Salvador and believe there are more victims.

        Oscar’s mother is calling for the death penalty.

        Just as Trump got the go-ahead to continue defenestrating illegal gangsters, SCOTUS delivered another gut punch to the roadblock judges trying to stop the Trump train.

        A San Francisco judge tried to force the Trump administration to reinstate 16,000 federal workers Trump had pink-slipped. Not today, commies! Once again, the Supreme Court had a better idea.
        Supreme Court rejects order trying to force Trump admin to send fired federal employees back to work.

        If your funny bone can handle another belly laugh — and in case you aren’t quite ready to pour yourself a bourbon — the Trump administration just revoked the protected status of roughly 985,000 immigrants who had used a Biden-era app to invade our nation. CBP One let them make an appointment and schedule a court hearing, which most of them wouldn’t have attended. Trump yanked their status even though they are already spread out across our fruited plains.

        Still on the wagon? What if I told you Trump just fired yet another woke NATO admiral who not only refused to hang photos of Trump and Pete Hegseth in her office but told her entire staff that she planned to “wait them out for four years.”

        So, Trump won two magnificent victories with the Supreme Court, oil prices are at a record low, another woke admiral is gone, and the world is lining up to renegotiate their usurping tariffs against we the people…
        …”

        https://pjmedia.com/kevindowneyjr/2025/04/08/trump-stacks-ws-commies-weep-into-their-soy-lattes-n4938703

        Keep crying Myr49er.

      5. “…Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process…”
        do you see the word illegal in that fragment? no, no you don’t.
        buhbye now.
        teach a man to fish, you feed him for a day.
        deport a man, and you never have to feed him again.

    3. “Democrat-seeded, deep state-pushed Russiagate conspiracy“

      Maybe if the Republican politicians weren’t actually involved with Russian oligarchs people wouldn’t think they were involved with Russian oligarchs:

      “Who Is Konstantin Nikolaev? Putin Ally Behind Mike Johnson Campaign Donation
      Published Feb 16, 2024 at 8:09 AM EST

      In 2018, a group of Russians were able to donate to Johnson’s bid for the Louisiana seat he eventually won as the money was funneled through the Texas-based American Ethane company.

      While American Ethane was co-founded by American John Houghtaling, at the time it was 88 percent owned by three Russian nationals—Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev. Nikolaev is known to be a top ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

      A spokesperson for Johnson previously assured in 2018 that the campaign returned the money that was given to them by American Ethane once it was “made aware of the situation.”

      Oh, OK, everything‘s fine, they gave it back once they were caught.

      No, nothing to see here, move along…

      1. .40 cal Booger

        “A spokesperson for Johnson previously assured in 2018 that the campaign returned the money that was given to them by American Ethane once it was “made aware of the situation.”

        Myner49 – That’s called integrity, something you are and democrat politicians and not familiar with. So, big deal, they were made aware of it, they weren’t ‘caught’ like you say…there was nothing to ‘catch’ them at and they did nothing wrong and acted with integrity to correct the situation.

        On the other hand, that ActBlue thing… ya know, the fraud there and those millions the democrat politicians kept despite it being known it was from foreign money sources.

        But ok, you keep trying to drum up something in your desperation to follow your left wing media handlers like a good little lap dog.

        1. “So, big deal, they were made aware of it, they weren’t ‘caught’ like you say… “

          So they didn’t notice a $37,000 campaign contribution from the Russian oligarchs at American Ethane, until journalists pointed out the Russian connection?

          Yeah, right.

          In fact, it’s really hard to tell exactly what Mike Johnson has in the way of assets, nothing shady about claiming none, nope, nothing here but us chickens:

          “Under assets on Speaker Johnson’s most recent financial disclosure report for 2022, it says “none disclosed.” No retirement plan, no mutual funds, no bank account. Actually, the Speaker’s office told Marketplace that he does have a personal bank account, but it’s exempt from House reporting rules because it doesn’t earn interest.
          “It could be like, he’s just essentially living hand to mouth. It’s paycheck to paycheck, and so it goes into a checking account goes right out of it,” said Jordan Libowitz, spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.“

          ttps://www.marketplace.org/story/2023/11/09/whats-the-deal-with-speaker-mike-johnsons-financial-disclosure

        2. .40 cal Booger

          Darn it… no edit function still… but anyway, correction for: “Myner49 – That’s called integrity, something you are and democrat politicians and not familiar with. So, big deal, they were made aware of it, they weren’t ‘caught’ like you say…there was nothing to ‘catch’ them at and they did nothing wrong and acted with integrity to correct the situation. ”

          should have been…

          Myner49 – That’s called integrity, something you and democrat politicians are not familiar with. So, big deal, they were made aware of it, they weren’t ‘caught’ like you say with your lie…there was nothing to ‘catch’ them at and they did nothing wrong and acted with integrity to correct the situation.

  2. If we get rid of the surplus CDC staff, who is going to teach Kindergartners how to safely masturbate?

    Seriously, the CDC had one primary mission and they failed spectacularly. They should have resigned in shame.

  3. Xdduly elected official

    If everyone shot had Blue Cross and Blue Shield the powers that be wouldn’t give a shit about guns .
    It’s all and always will be about the money.