This bill authorizes the Attorney General to make competitive grants to eligible State, Tribal, and local government entities, including law enforcement, to carry out firearm destruction. It requires grantees to describe how funds will be used to destroy firearms and all parts, identify community partners, and certify that destruction will be complete with maintained records.
The program runs for two years per grant, with a total appropriation of $15 million annually from 2026 through 2031, and includes a 10 percent cap on administrative costs and a set-aside to favor small urban and rural areas.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General may award competitive grants to eligible State, Tribal, or local government entities to support firearm destruction, with awards issued within 180 days after appropriations. Destruction must cover firearms in their entirety, including all parts. Grantees must maintain destruction records and provide proof of destruction.
Who It Affects
State governments, tribal governments, and units of local government (including their law enforcement agencies) that run gun destruction activities, plus partner organizations involved in acquisition, disposal, or destruction.
Why It Matters
Establishes a formal, standardized federal mechanism to remove firearms from circulation, ensures accountable destruction through documentation, and directs resources to targeted communities while imposing governance and reporting standards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Restoring Trust in Public Safety Act creates a federal grant program under the Department of Justice’s Attorney General to fund firearm destruction activities. Eligible recipients are State and tribal governments and units of local government, including their law enforcement agencies, which may apply to receive grants on a competitive basis after an appropriation is made.
The grant period lasts two years, and grantees may use funds to purchase or maintain destruction equipment, contract with destruction-service providers, and train staff. Subgrants to local units and law enforcement are permitted, and a chief-grantee can extend opportunities to subgrantees that did not receive a grant directly.
Applicants must describe how funds will be used for destruction, identify partners and their roles, certify that funds will destroy firearms and all parts, and certify records will be kept. The Act allocates $15 million per year for 2026–2031, with 10 percent allowed for administrative costs and a one-third set-aside for applicants representing metropolitan areas or rural districts.
It also defines what counts as firearm destruction, including frames, receivers, barrels, and attachments, and requires a written destruction policy and documented proof of destruction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The grant program is open to State, Tribal, and local government entities, including law enforcement agencies, to carry out firearm destruction.
Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, with awards made within 180 days after appropriation and a two-year grant duration.
Funds may be used for destruction equipment, destruction services, and staff training, with an administrative cap of 10%.
One-third of total funding is reserved for applicants representing Metropolitan Statistical Areas or rural areas, to promote geographic equity.
Total authorization is $15 million per fiscal year from 2026 through 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grant program overview
The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to eligible entities (States, Tribal governments, or units of local government, including their law enforcement agencies) to support firearm destruction activities. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and awards must be made within 180 days after appropriations. Grantees may use funds to destroy firearms and related components, and must ensure that destruction is comprehensive and documented.
Application requirements
To be eligible, an applicant must submit an application describing how the grant will be used for firearm destruction, the community partners involved and their roles, certification that funds will be used to destroy firearms fully (including all parts), and certification that the applicant will make and maintain records of destroyed firearms and parts.
Use of funds
Eligible uses include purchasing or maintaining equipment for destruction (smelting, crushing, shredding, etc.), contracting with destruction services that fully destroy firearms and all components, and training staff involved in destruction activities.
Administrative costs
Grantees may use up to 10 percent of grant funds for administrative costs associated with carrying out the program, including reporting and compliance efforts.
Small urban and rural preference
One-third of total appropriations must be set aside for applicants representing Metropolitan Statistical Areas or rural areas, ensuring geographic distribution of funds.
Authorization of appropriations
The Act authorizes $15,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2031 to carry out the program.
Definitions
States, Tribal governments, and a firearm destruction definition covering destruction of a firearm or weapon in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting, including all parts and attachments (frame/receiver, barrel, sights, silencers, etc.).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State governments operating gun destruction programs gain access to federal funds to implement destruction campaigns and remove weapons from communities.
- Tribal governments with organized destruction efforts receive targeted support to address local safety concerns.
- Cities and counties with local destruction programs benefit from grant resources and potential subgrant opportunities for municipal police departments.
- Law enforcement agencies contracted to perform destruction services can leverage funding to expand capacity and ensure complete destruction.
- Communities in urban and rural areas that are prioritized in the funding set-aside benefit from direct resources aimed at removing firearms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Grantee agencies bear administrative and reporting burdens, though capped at 10% of grant funds by the statute.
- Subgrantees, including local police departments, shoulder ongoing program costs and compliance requirements.
- Destruction service providers and equipment vendors may need to scale operations to meet grant-driven demand.
- Local governments must allocate staff and time to implement destruction policies and maintain records.
- States or tribes with limited administrative capacity may incur indirect costs associated with program management and oversight.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a strong, verifiable policy goal—complete destruction of firearms with reliable proof and records—against the practical realities of administering multi-jurisdictional grant programs in diverse urban and rural settings, all while maintaining equitable access and avoiding overburdening agencies with paperwork.
The bill foregrounds a goal of removing firearms from civilian circulation through fully documented destruction, but that aim hinges on robust implementation at multiple levels of government. Requiring write-up policies, documentation standards, and records retention imposes administrative duties on grantees and subgrantees.
While the 10% cap helps contain overhead, real-world costs of destruction programs—training, equipment maintenance, and coordination with partners—could exceed that cap in some jurisdictions. The one-third allocation for small urban and rural areas advances equity but may complicate statewide planning or distribution of resources.
Finally, establishing acceptable forms of proof of destruction by rule could raise questions about evidentiary value for ongoing investigations or audits, depending on how the proof is defined and verified.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.