A recent report has revealed that various federal agencies have been significantly increasing their stockpiles of guns, ammunition, and tactical gear. According to watchdog group OpenTheBooks.com, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alone has spent $10 million on weapons and related equipment since 2020. This is part of a broader trend where 102 non-Department of Defense agencies have collectively spent $3.7 billion on such items since 2006.
The IRS, which traditionally isn't seen as a law enforcement body, now holds a substantial arsenal. The agency's purchases since 2020 include $2.3 million worth of duty ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, and hundreds of thousands of dollars on rifles, shotguns, and tactical gear.
https://x.com/eveforamerica/status/1794332931437277311
This is in addition to the 4,500 firearms and 5 million rounds of ammunition it already possessed before ramping up its spending during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Other agencies have similarly bolstered their armaments. The Health and Human Services (HHS) department has spent $154 million on weapons and tactical gear since 2006, and the Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are among those also increasing their firepower. There are now more federal agents with arrest and firearm authority than there are U.S. Marines, a striking statistic that has raised concerns about the militarization of regulatory agencies.
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1669465579894210568
The expansion of armed capabilities among federal agencies is seen by some as necessary for dealing with increasingly sophisticated criminal threats. The IRS, for instance, states that its Criminal Investigation Special Agents have historically needed to be armed due to the dangerous nature of their work, which often involves tackling organized crime and major financial fraud.
However, this trend has not been without controversy. Critics argue that the growing militarization of civilian agencies is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. They fear that it could lead to overreach and the excessive use of force in situations that do not warrant such a heavy-handed approach.
The significant investment in arms and tactical gear by agencies not traditionally associated with law enforcement duties has sparked a debate about the appropriate role and scope of federal power.
In response to these revelations, there are calls for greater oversight and transparency regarding the procurement and use of weapons by federal agencies. Ensuring that these agencies are accountable and that their use of force is justified and appropriate remains a critical issue for lawmakers and the public alike.
