The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has removed the 2024 Surgeon General’s advisory on gun violence from its website, marking a significant policy shift in how the federal government approaches firearm-related deaths. The advisory, originally issued by then-Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, labeled gun violence as a public health crisis, urging urgent action and stricter firearm regulations. However, with the new administration’s stance on gun rights, the advisory has now disappeared without a trace, leaving many questioning what this means for the future of gun policy in America.
HHS Quietly Deletes Gun Violence Advisory
According to a CNN report by Jacqueline Howard and Deidre McPhillips, a link that previously led to the Office of the Surgeon General’s firearm violence publications now redirects to a “Page Not Found” message. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon confirmed in a statement that the removal was in direct compliance with President Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting Second Amendment Rights.
Trump’s Executive Order Targets Gun Control Policies
President Trump’s executive order, issued last month, called for a sweeping review of all federal actions related to gun rights from 2021 to 2025. The order specifically instructed the Attorney General to examine policies that “purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” This has led to the rollback of several Biden-era gun control measures, including the apparent shutdown of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention earlier this year.
NBC4 Columbus’ Eric Halperin reported that the HHS removal aligns with the broader dismantling of federal programs aimed at addressing gun violence. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, once a key initiative under the Biden administration, ceased operations in January, further signaling a shift in how the federal government views the issue.
Langley Outdoors Academy: “Gun Controllers Are Losing Their Favorite Toys”
Braden Langley, host of Langley Outdoors Academy, celebrated the advisory’s removal as a victory for gun rights. In his latest video, he argued that the “public health crisis” label was always a tool for gun control advocates to circumvent the Second Amendment. “This was their way of using health policy to fund gun control research and push restrictions through the back door,” Langley said. “Now, one of their favorite toys has been taken away.”
Langley emphasized that this move was not just about removing a webpage – it represented a broader effort to undo what he calls “executive branch bureaucratic nonsense.” He praised the administration for “ripping out gun control propaganda by the roots” and insisted that more action is needed to remove similar regulations.
Surgeon General’s Shift Leaves Questions About Gun Policy
The removal of the advisory leaves uncertainty about the federal government’s stance on gun violence prevention. The advisory was significant because it was the first time in U.S. history that a Surgeon General formally classified gun violence as a public health issue. It included a 40-page report that called for a ban on assault weapons, a position that was heavily criticized by the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the time.
Dr. Murthy’s successor, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, has yet to be confirmed, and her stance on gun violence remains unclear. CNN noted that Nesheiwat, a former Fox News medical contributor, has personal experience with firearm accidents, as her father was killed in a gun-related incident when she was a child. Whether this personal history will influence her approach to gun policy remains to be seen.
Gun Control Advocates Slam the Move
The decision to remove the advisory has drawn sharp criticism from gun control organizations. Emma Brown, Executive Director of Giffords, the advocacy group founded by former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, accused the administration of prioritizing gun industry profits over public safety. “By removing this important public health advisory with lifesaving resources, President Trump has chosen to prioritize gun industry profits over protecting kids and families,” Brown said in a press release.
Former Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams also weighed in, warning that ignoring gun violence as a public health issue could have dire consequences. “If we care about kids and about making America healthy again, we have to address gun violence,” Adams said. He pointed out that firearm deaths remain the leading cause of death among young Americans, adding that suicide prevention should be a critical part of gun policy discussions.
Local Governments Continue to Treat Gun Violence as a Crisis
Despite the federal government’s shift, some local governments remain committed to addressing gun violence as a public health issue. Columbus, Ohio, for example, declared gun violence a public health crisis three years ago and has no plans to change its approach. Rena Shak, director of Columbus’ Office of Violence Prevention, told NBC4 Columbus that the removal of the federal advisory will not alter the city’s efforts.
“I’d like to tell you that I’m surprised, but I’m not,” Shak said. “Regardless of whether the Surgeon General was forced to take down the gun violence declaration, it doesn’t change our dedication to doing the work here.”
Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther also reinforced the city’s commitment, stating that 11 of the 12 homicides in Columbus this year involved a firearm. “As long as gun violence continues to affect our community, we will treat it as a public health crisis,” Ginther said.
The Legal Battle Over Gun Violence Data
The decision to remove the advisory raises another question: What happens to gun violence research funding? Critics argue that by scrubbing the advisory, the administration is attempting to stifle research that supports stronger gun control laws.
Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA), countered that argument by insisting there is no “public health crisis loophole” in the Constitution. “The problem is criminality, not public health,” Pratt said, suggesting that gun control advocates have been using public health language as a cover for advancing stricter gun laws.
Public Health vs. Criminality: The Ongoing Debate
One of the major points of contention in this debate is whether gun violence should be classified as a public health issue at all. Supporters of the advisory argue that firearm deaths, including suicides, should be addressed with public health strategies like mental health resources and suicide prevention programs.
Opponents, however, see this as an excuse for government overreach. As Langley put it, “They want to pretend guns are a disease so they can regulate them like one. But guns are not a virus, they are tools. The issue isn’t guns – it’s crime and mental health.”
What Comes Next?
The removal of the gun violence advisory and the dismantling of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention signal a fundamental shift in federal policy. Whether this means further rollbacks of gun control measures remains to be seen, but it is clear that the administration is prioritizing gun rights over public health framing.
Gun control advocates fear this will lead to a lack of resources for firearm-related research, while Second Amendment supporters see it as a necessary correction of government overreach. As the battle over gun policy continues, this move has set the stage for a deeper national debate about the role of government in firearm regulation.
A Step Forward or Backward?
The decision to remove the advisory is a major turning point in America’s ongoing gun debate. Supporters argue it prevents unconstitutional gun control measures from creeping into public health policy, while opponents see it as a dangerous step away from addressing a real and ongoing crisis.
What’s clear is that this issue isn’t going away. Whether this is a victory for gun rights or a setback for public safety depends on which side of the debate you’re on. But one thing is certain: this move will have lasting consequences on how gun violence is discussed, researched, and addressed in the years to come.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.