New Act Pumps $45M Annually into Gun Violence Research, Lifting Decades-Old Restrictions on CDC and ATF Data

If you’ve ever wondered why we have detailed studies on everything from traffic accidents to rare diseases, but relatively little federal research on gun violence—a leading cause of death—this bill is the answer. The National Gun Violence Research Act of 2025 is essentially a massive reset button on federal science, explicitly lifting decades of restrictions that kept agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from treating gun violence as a public health crisis.

This bill doesn’t introduce new gun laws; it introduces new research. It authorizes a total of $45 million annually from 2026 through 2031 to fund competitive grants, establish research centers, and train a new generation of researchers across five different federal agencies (SEC. 6). For busy people, this means that instead of relying on gut feelings or limited data, future policy discussions—whether local or federal—will have a much stronger, science-backed foundation.

The Data Dams Are Breaking

For years, a major hurdle for researchers has been access to federal data. This bill takes aim at two key restrictions. First, it explicitly states that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the CDC and NIH, can now use its existing funds to conduct or support gun violence research, overriding any past limitations (SEC. 4). This is a huge deal, restoring the ability of our nation’s top health agencies to study this issue.

Second, and perhaps more importantly for data scientists, the bill removes specific legislative language that prevented the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from sharing its Firearms Trace System database with researchers (SEC. 4). This trace data is critical for understanding the flow of firearms used in crimes. Under the new rules, the Attorney General must establish ethical protocols and then begin sharing this information with researchers within one year (SEC. 6). For the academic community, this is like unlocking a massive, previously inaccessible vault of information that could drastically improve our understanding of how guns move and where intervention points lie.

Who’s Getting the Money and Why It Matters

The funding is spread across several agencies to ensure a multidisciplinary approach. The National Science Foundation (NSF) gets $15 million annually to fund research into the causes and consequences of gun violence, including how policy changes affect rates of injury and also how they impact activities like self-defense and recreation (SEC. 6). This is an interesting mandate, requiring research to look at the full spectrum of impacts, not just the negative ones.

The HHS (CDC/NIH) receives the largest chunk, $25 million annually, focused on the public health aspects—prevention, consequences, and treatment. The Department of Justice (DOJ) gets $3 million for research and facilitating the new data sharing rules. Finally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) gets $1 million annually to encourage the creation of voluntary technical standards for gun safety (SEC. 6). Note the word voluntary—NIST is explicitly forbidden from creating mandatory standards, focusing instead on industry-led improvements in safety features.

What This Means for Your World

If this bill works as intended, the impact won't be immediate but will roll out over the next few years. For someone working in the healthcare industry, this means better data to inform public health campaigns and trauma care protocols. For a local government official, it means access to evidence-based strategies that have been rigorously tested, rather than relying on guesswork when trying to reduce community violence.

However, the success of this bill hinges on the details that aren't fully defined yet. For example, while the ATF must share its trace data, it must first establish “agreed-upon rules for letting researchers access gun trace data ethically” (SEC. 6). These rules could become a bureaucratic bottleneck if they are overly restrictive. Similarly, the entire research program will be guided by an interagency working group and an advisory committee (SEC. 5), whose priorities will determine which research gets funded. The advisory committee, composed of experts from various fields including law enforcement and non-profits, will be responsible for ensuring funding is “balanced across different activities,” which could lead to political wrangling over research focus. Overall, this bill is a major step toward evidence-based policy, prioritizing science and data over political gridlock, but the real test will be in the execution of the data-sharing and funding rules.