Hegseth Orders Easier Personal Firearms Access On Military Bases
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo directing commanders to presume approval for service members to carry personal firearms on military installations and to allow vehicle storage at the Pentagon.

Pete Hegseth allows troops to carry personal firearms on military bases

Sea Change: Hegseth Announces Bases Will No Longer Be Gun Free Zones
Hegseth says he will allow troops to take personal weapons onto military bases
Pentagon expands firearm access for off-duty military members on base
Overview
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum on April 2, 2026 directing installation commanders to allow service members to request permission to carry privately owned firearms on military installations with a "presumption of approval," the Pentagon said.
Hegseth framed the policy as a Second Amendment and personal-protection measure and cited the 2019 attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola, a 2025 shooting at Fort Stewart, and a 2026 shooting at Holloman Air Force Base, the Pentagon said.
Tanya Schardt of the Brady gun violence prevention organization warned the move could "undoubtedly" increase gun suicide and other violence, noting most active-duty suicides involve personally owned weapons, she said.
The memorandum builds on section 526 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, requires denials to be explained in detail and in writing, and directs Pentagon officials to update regulations to formalize the approval process, the Pentagon said.
The memo assigns the undersecretary of war for intelligence and security to update War Department Manual 5200.08 and directs the Pentagon Force Protection Agency to apply the presumption of approval while allowing storage of privately owned firearms in vehicles on the Pentagon Reservation but not carry inside the building.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame the policy as a rights-forward, pragmatic response to base shootings by foregrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s constitutional language and the memorandum’s “presumption of approval.” Editorial emphasis on past attacks and reversal of restrictive practice prioritizes military autonomy; few safety experts or dissenting voices are presented, shaping a permissive narrative.