Senate Clash Highlights Deep Divide Over Gun Enforcement and Border Policy

WASHINGTON — A tense Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week laid bare a widening rift between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration’s Justice Department over firearm regulations, border enforcement, and the flow of American-made weapons into Mexico. The exchange between Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, and Attorney General Pam Bondi underscored the political and legal complexity surrounding gun-conversion devices at a moment when federal agencies are reevaluating long-standing interpretations of automatic weapons law.

At the center of the questioning was the Justice Department’s recent decision to drop litigation involving forced-reset triggers — after-market components that can allow certain semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15–style weapons, to fire rounds at speeds approaching those of fully automatic machine guns. The devices have become a growing focus of concern among gun-safety advocates and some lawmakers, who argue they undermine nearly a century of federal controls over automatic firearms.

Sen. Reed pressed Bondi on the department’s public claim that the settlement “enhances public safety,” noting that demonstrations available online show modified rifles discharging a 30-round magazine in approximately four seconds. “These are devices that, in effect, convert a legal weapon into an automatic one,” Reed said. “How does increasing the availability of such rapid-fire weapons make Americans safer?”

Bondi defended the settlement, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on bump stocks guided the department’s legal position and that the agreement secured a commitment from the manufacturer not to market the devices for handguns. “We followed the law,” she said. “We will continue to follow the law. I am a career prosecutor, and I will do everything in my power to keep Americans safe.”

Reed, however, pushed back, noting that machine guns have been heavily restricted since the 1930s and suggesting that the department was disregarding technological advances that make semi-automatic weapons easier to convert. “You are ignoring the reality,” he said. “This is not about the Second Amendment. These are devices designed for mass fire.”

The attorney general repeatedly insisted that the department’s hands were tied by legal precedent. When Reed pressed further, questioning how a policy that effectively expands access to near-automatic firing rates could be reconciled with decades of federal restrictions, Bondi shifted the discussion to border security, emphasizing the administration’s efforts to seize firearms smuggled by undocumented immigrants and criminal organizations.

“What we should be concerned about are illegal guns flowing into our country,” she said, citing thousands of firearms seized by federal agents during President Trump’s tenure. “Our borders are closed, and we are arresting dangerous cartel members.”

Reed countered by raising the reverse flow of weapons — American firearms trafficked into Mexico, where they fuel cartel violence and contribute to regional instability. “What are we doing to stop American weapons from arming gangs across the border?” he asked.

Bondi responded with statistics on domestic gun seizures and blamed previous administrations for weak enforcement, but did not directly answer Reed’s question about how the department plans to curb traffickers who purchase weapons in the United States and move them south. “We are taking these guns off the streets,” she said. “There’s been a 33 percent increase in firearm seizures since President Trump took office.”

The senator remained unsatisfied. “I don’t think you’ve taken steps that meaningfully interrupt the arming of Mexican gangs,” he said, arguing that traffickers rely on U.S.-based supply chains that require internal enforcement rather than border-focused measures.

The exchange grew more heated when the discussion turned to the military’s presence along the border. Reed questioned why Army units remain stationed near the southern border if it is, as Bondi asserted, “closed.” Bondi maintained that military assets were deployed to “keep Americans safe,” though Reed suggested the posture served more political than operational purposes.

The hearing exposed broader tensions over how the administration interprets long-established limits on automatic weapons. While Bondi reiterated her position that the department is merely complying with the Supreme Court and existing statutes, critics argue that the forced-reset trigger settlement reflects a willingness to narrow enforcement in ways that undermine public safety.

Outside legal experts note that federal firearms policy has historically evolved alongside technology. “If a device allows a semi-automatic rifle to mimic fully automatic fire, regulators must consider whether existing definitions still apply,” said Jeffrey Fagan, a Columbia University law professor specializing in criminal law and policing. “The core issue is whether the law keeps pace with innovation.”

Gun-control advocates warn that conversion devices — which can be installed in minutes and are difficult for law enforcement to detect — pose a growing threat, especially following recent mass shootings involving modified weapons. Gun-rights supporters, by contrast, argue that such devices fall within legal boundaries unless Congress acts to redefine machine guns.

As the hearing concluded, Reed emphasized that oversight is intended to force clarity, not score political points. “These are real-world questions with real-world consequences,” he said. “We cannot ignore the risks posed by devices that effectively revive the capabilities of machine guns.”

Bondi, for her part, reiterated that the department is “following the law” and focused on criminal enforcement. The disagreement — over law, technology, and the proper scope of federal authority — appears far from resolved, setting the stage for continued clashes as both Congress and the courts confront the evolving landscape of gun regulation.