During a recent four-year period the Environmental Protection Agency spent nearly $620,000 on guns and related gear for its employees, begging the question, why?
Why does an agency charged with protecting the environment need weapons?
Between the years 2018 and 2022, the EPA purchased firearms, ammunition and military-style equipment that included body armor, optical sights and night vision aids, at a total cost of $618,602, according to Open the Books, a government watchdog group.
The agents who were armed appeared ready, maybe eager even, to use their weapons, according to Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La.
"There was a pretty extreme edge to the regulatory enforcement agents that interacted with my constituents, especially in rural areas," the Louisiana Republican said. "I was surprised to find that these regulatory agencies had armed police officers rolling up into my constituents' properties to enforce their regulations."
Apparently protecting the environment is a serious, life-or-death business … or something.
This isn't limited to the EPA. On Oct. 20, 2017 Forbes reported that numerous other federal regulatory agencies spent $44 million on guns and related gear, including:
— The Department of Energy's "urgent" order for 20 M-16 rifles with extra magazines ($49,559).
— The General Services Administration's purchase of shotguns and Glock pistols ($16,568).
—The Bureau of Reclamation's bulk order of pistols, sights, and accessories ($697,182).
While you're scratching your head over these purchases, consider also that agents at some 40 regulatory, non-policing agencies are now authorized to carry weapons, including those at the Small Business Administration (SBA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The 2017 Forbes article also reported that the federal agency Americans already fear the most — the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — was arming itself to the teeth with weapons that included AR-15's, P90 tactical rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and related military-style equipment.
Last year Open the Books reported that the IRS was upping the ante to arm its 360 projected new criminal investigators. Those new hires, according to the agency's employment notice, had to be "willing to use force up to and including the use of deadly force."
(I swear, I paid my taxes — every cent.)
Sen. Joni Ernst introduced a bill last year to de-fang the IRS.
"The taxman is fully loaded at the expense of the taxpayer," the Iowa Republican said in her press release.
"As the Biden administration has worked to expand the size of the IRS, any further weaponization of this federal agency against hardworking Americans and small businesses is a grave concern.
"I'm working to disarm the IRS and return these dollars to address reckless spending in Washington."
But her party was, and still is, in the minority, and the bill went nowhere. Democrats like having their taxmen armed.
Gun control proponents often argue that no one needs an AR-15.
But the Second Amendment isn't based on "need."
It's a right — a right granted to the people, not pencil-pushing bureaucrats.
President Biden likes to say that "No one needs 30 rounds to kill a deer."
But a better argument might be, "Pencil-pushing bureaucrats don't need 30 rounds to protect the environment."
Disarm the bureaucracy before someone gets hurt.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.