This website is intended to provide clear, accurate information regarding the organization formerly known as The NRA Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”), its mission, and its governance. Its purpose is to establish baseline facts, correct material mischaracterizations, and provide transparency regarding the Foundation’s legal obligations and operations.
Coming on the heels of the court in the DC Superior Court, denying NRA’s motions for a preliminary injunction and for partial summary judgment and granting the 1791 Foundation’s cross motion for partial summary judgment just a few weeks ago (you can view the judge’s order here), the court has now granted a substantial portion of the Foundation’s motion to dismiss in this case.
The court granted dismissal in full as to three counts: Count I – third-party beneficiary breach of contract, Count III – breach of implied contract, and Count IV – promissory estoppel.
The court also dismissed Count VI – diversion of charitable assets as to NRA President Bachenberg and NRA Executive Vice President Hamlin. As a result, they are no longer parties to the case. For the remaining counts, the court also dismissed certain of the NRA’s theories as to each, significantly narrowing the issues before the court.
With respect to Count II – third-party beneficiary and settlor breach of trust, the court dismissed this NRA claim to the extent it was premised on the theory that the Foundation is a trust of which the NRA is the settlor.
With respect to Count V – unjust enrichment, the court dismissed the claim to the extent that it seeks to recover for fundraising and other services provided to the Foundation, as those services are already covered by a Shared Services Agreement entered into between the Foundation and NRA.
The court also dismissed Count VI with respect to the NRA to the extent that it rests on an anticipated reduction in future funding.
The Foundation is obviously very pleased with this outcome. As a reminder, the NRA brought this action in DC Superior Court case after the DC federal court dismissed the same claims brought by NRA in that venue.
As previously noted, this litigation now is concentrated in two courts in the District of Columbia, federal court and DC Superior Court. It is unfortunate that the NRA has chosen to sue the Foundation instead of focusing on the missions of the NRA and the Foundation.
Nevertheless, the Foundation will continue to defend itself and its actions—as it must and just as it successfully did here—while continuing to pursue its charitable and educational mission.
After NRA filed it’s first lawsuit against the Foundation in federal court in the District of Columbia, the Foundation filed a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed various DC “state” law claims brought by NRA. NRA then refiled those claims in DC Superior Court.
In the DC Superior court case, the second lawsuit filed by the NRA against the Foundation, NRA sought a preliminary injunction against the Foundation hoping to prevent the Foundation from engaging in certain grantmaking activities, as well as other injunctive relief. NRA also filed a motion for partial summary judgment—making various claims and hoping to stop the Foundation Board’s actions to strengthen its compliance and rollback other valid actions by the Foundation and its Board. The Foundation opposed the NRA motions and filed a cross motion for summary judgment to establish the validity of the Foundation and Board actions.
On Friday, October 2, 2026, the court denied NRA’s motions for a preliminary injunction and for partial summary judgment and granted the Foundation’s cross motion for partial summary judgment. The Foundation is very pleased with this outcome. A copy of the judge’s order is linked below.
This litigation now spreads across three cases. It is unfortunate that so many dollars are going into this litigation instead of the missions of the NRA and the Foundation. Second Amendment supporters are not well-served by all of this. Nevertheless, the Foundation will continue to defend itself and its actions, as it must and just as the Foundation did successfully here. The Foundation looks forward to putting all of this behind it so that our full attention can be directed toward our charitable and educational mission.
Please read the judge’s order in full for more detail, linked here.
The Foundation filed a legal motion on March 20, 2026 asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the NRA in full because the claims are improperly asserted and legally defective. A motion to dismiss asks the judge to end a case early because the claims do not meet basic legal requirements. The Foundation is seeking dismissal with prejudice—meaning the NRA would not be permitted to refile these claims. The Foundation previously filed a motion to dismiss in response to the NRA’s original complaint. The renewed motion responds to the new allegations included in the Amended Complaint.
A motion to dismiss asks the judge to end a case early because the claims do not meet basic legal requirements.
The Foundation is not a trust controlled by the NRA.
It is a separate nonprofit corporation formed in 1990 as an independent 501(c)(3) public charity.
The Foundation is legally required to maintain independence.
Pursuant to law and following a Consent Judgment with the District of Columbia Attorney General, the Foundation strengthened governance safeguards to ensure independent oversight of charitable assets.
The NRA, Bill Bachenberg, and Doug Hamlin do not have legal standing to bring several of their asserted claims.
Certain types of claims, like some of those brought by the NRA, that concern charitable organizations can typically only be brought by the Attorney General, not by another private organization or private persons. Mr. Hamlin himself has publicly stated that “[b]y law, all deductible contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations are within the discretion and control of the 501(c)(3)[,]” confirming that the Foundation’s independent exercise of discretion is lawful and appropriate.
The Foundation continues to honor donor restrictions.
The NRA’s own complaint acknowledges that the Foundation intends to continue funding restricted grants according to their terms.
The lawsuit challenges the Foundation’s lawful discretion.
As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity, the Foundation is required by law to maintain independence and control over its charitable funds to protect donor intent and tax-deductible contributions.
Federal law requires 501(c)(3) charities to remain independent and maintain control over their charitable assets.
These safeguards exist to protect donor intent and tax-deductible contributions. The Foundation’s filing explains why the lawsuit conflicts with those requirements.
The National Rifle Association filed a complaint against the NRA Foundation under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that was adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Name and Numbers (ICANN) on 1/13/26. This relates to the domain name “TheNRAFoundation.org” that employees and Trustees of the Foundation use for private, secure, and independent email communications..
The National Rifle Association sought to have the domain assigned to it.
The NRA Foundation opposed the NRA’s request and based on the pending Federal lawsuit the request for relief was DENIED and this case was terminated. The full report is available in Documents.
The Foundation
The Foundation is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the Foundation is prohibited from engaging in substantial lobbying or partisan political activities and may not enable or permit funds raised to be used for lobbying and partisan activities. Donations to the Foundation are tax-deductible. The Foundation was formed in 1990 to fund charitable, educational, and scientific purposes, including:
From its inception, the Foundation’s governing documents contemplated that the Foundation’s activities would go beyond funding NRA programs. And the Foundation has always funded Section 501(c)(3) activities of other organizations.
The NRA
The NRA is a tax-exempt social welfare organization under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Unlike the Foundation, the NRA may engage in lobbying and partisan political activities, but it cannot solicit tax-deductible charitable donations.
To preserve the tax-deductible nature of charitable contributions, the Foundation is required by law to keep its assets separate from the NRA and to exercise discretion and control over its charitable assets. The Foundation does this by, among other things:
The NRA and the Foundation have historically shared some officers and directors as well as things like office space, employees, and other resources provided by the NRA. The Foundation continues to exercise discretion and control over grants to the NRA’s charitable programs.
YES.
On August 6, 2020, the District of Columbia, through its Office of the Attorney General (“DCAG”), filed a lawsuit involving both the NRA and the Foundation. The DCAG complaint alleged, among other things, that certain financial arrangements between the organizations placed the NRA’s interests ahead of the Foundation’s interests and that the Foundation needed to exercise greater oversight responsibilities. (Source: Consent Judgment ¶ 2)
The Foundation’s Board of Trustees has always taken its fiduciary duties seriously. It vigorously defended the DCAG action, resulting in a favorable Consent Judgment with the District. Notably, the NRA’s lawsuit against the Foundation fails to mention the DCAG complaint or the Consent Judgment.
The NRA sought to exercise improper control over the Foundation’s assets, which can jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the Foundation and the tax-deductible donations it receives. It is a matter of public record that the NRA has experienced net losses over the past two years and has been required to liquidate more than $40 million of its investment portfolio to reduce debt and fund operations. NRA also furloughed and terminated a number of its staff members and experienced these net losses due to declining membership and donations during this same period.
The NRA brought this lawsuit when the Foundation resisted the NRA’s efforts to control Foundation funds.
The Foundation is legally obligated to ensure that its funds are used in a manner consistent with its mission, internal policies, tax-exempt status, and applicable law. This includes maintaining discretion and control over charitable funds and ensuring that payments to third parties are reasonable and lawful.
To be clear, the Foundation has funded millions in grants to the NRA’s charitable programs for 2026. The Foundation, in its discretion, declined to make certain payments recently requested by the NRA—including payments the NRA characterized as trademark “royalties” and significant overhead expenses requested by the NRA as charitable grants. The Foundation has been consistent in its position throughout: it will fund eligible charitable programs operated by the NRA, pursuant to its grant policies and applicable law, but it will not provide funds that jeopardize its tax-exempt status or that do not serve its charitable mission.
While the Foundation has and will continue to fund certain NRA charitable programs pursuant to its grant policies, written grant agreements, and applicable law, the Foundation has declined to fund excessive overhead expenses and other requests for funding that the Foundation believes are not in the Foundation’s best interest or otherwise consistent with its tax-exempt status or applicable law.
The Friends of the NRA program has historically been the premier fundraising program of the Foundation, and the Foundation funded 100% of its operations. In recent months, the NRA has barred the Foundation from exercising oversight of Friends of NRA communications and events. Not only is this problematic because the Foundation funds the program, but the Foundation also faces the reality that the NRA had and could continue to jeopardize the Foundation’s tax-exempt status through its operation of the program. The Foundation had no choice but to notify the NRA in December 2025 that it would stop funding Friends of NRA as of February 1, 2026.
In federal court litigation, plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend their complaint at least once to address any deficiencies. After the NRA filed its original complaint, the Foundation filed a motion to dismiss, which pointed out problems and weaknesses in the NRA’s complaint. The NRA then took its opportunity to amend the complaint to try and address those deficiencies, and the Foundation took its opportunity to respond with an updated motion to dismiss, arguing that the NRA has not and cannot amend its way out of dismissal.
In its Amended Complaint, the NRA added a new claim alleging that the Foundation’s registration and use of the domain name
The Foundation’s legal corporate name is The NRA Foundation, Inc., a name it has used continuously with the NRA’s express consent since its incorporation in 1990—more than 35 years ago. The domain name
When the Foundation was incorporated in 1990, then-NRA Secretary Warren L. Cheek provided a notarized letter expressly consenting to the use of “NRA” in the Foundation’s name. That consent was given without condition and was incorporated into the Foundation’s perpetual corporate charter.
Yes. The Foundation’s Articles of Incorporation expressly permit the Foundation to amend its Bylaws through a majority vote of the currently serving Board of Directors. The Foundation’s Board exercised that authority lawfully, and it properly filed Articles of Amendment with the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection. The DCAG’s Consent Judgment itself required the Foundation to strengthen its independence from the NRA, and the governance reforms the Foundation implemented are consistent with that mandate.
Claim “The Foundation is simply an extension of the NRA.”
Assessment False
Explanation
The NRA Foundation was incorporated in 1990 as a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation and has operated for more than three decades as a separate 501(c)(3) public charity. Federal law requires 501(c)(3) charities to maintain independence and control over their funds to protect tax-deductible contributions and donor intent.
Claim “The Foundation ‘seeks to jettison its historic purpose of supporting NRA charitable programs.'”
Assessment False
Explanation
Since the 1990s, the Foundation has supported hundreds of charitable programs nationwide, many of which have no corporate affiliation with the NRA. These include Boy Scouts troops and councils, 4-H groups, Olympic-level marksmanship programs, local law enforcement training initiatives, and other community-based efforts.
The Foundation also continues to fund eligible charitable programs operated by the NRA, such as the Eddie Eagle Program, Hunter Education, and shooting competitions. In 2026, the Foundation has funded more than $7 million in qualifying expenses for charitable programs administered by the NRA.
Claim “The Foundation ‘has slashed its support for NRA programs.'”
Assessment False
Explanation
The Foundation continues to fund eligible charitable programs operated by the NRA, subject to grant policies and legal requirements. The Foundation has agreed to fund more than $7 million in qualifying expenses for charitable programs administered by the NRA in 2026.
Claim “The Foundation has ‘dishonored the intent of the millions of Americans who contributed to the Foundation’ to support NRA programs.”
Assessment False
Explanation
The Foundation has never wavered from its charitable mission. The NRA’s insistence that more than 20% of charitable donations fund purported overhead expenses to operate its charitable programs is itself what dishonors donor intent. The Foundation has declined to fund these and other expenses.
Claim “The Foundation is now attempting to ‘separate itself from the NRA.'”
Assessment False
Explanation
The Foundation has always been a separate and independent entity regulated under various laws related to charities. That has not changed. The Foundation has worked to develop greater independence from the NRA to avoid future attempts by the NRA to exercise undue influence and control over the Foundation and its assets. The Foundation nonetheless continues to support eligible 501(c)(3) programs of the NRA, subject to NRA’s compliance with Foundation grant policies.
Claim “The Foundation ‘intends to hijack the NRA’s trademark.'”
Assessment False
Explanation
The Foundation’s legal name is The NRA Foundation, Inc. It has used this name continuously since its formation in 1990—more than 35 years ago.
The NRA did not previously object to the Foundation’s use of its legal name, nor did it seek payment related to that use prior to the current dispute. The Foundation disputes that the NRA has any right to do so now.
Claim “‘All or Substantially All’ funds raised by the Foundation were raised by the NRA or through NRA trademarks.”
Assessment False
Explanation
Because the NRA is not a 501(c)(3) organization, it cannot itself solicit tax-deductible charitable donations. Donors seeking tax-deductible contributions must donate to a qualified charitable organization such as the Foundation, which is required to retain control and discretion over the use of those funds until they are applied to eligible charitable purposes. The NRA’s role in fundraising does not transfer ownership or control of donated funds to the NRA.
Claim “The Foundation registered its domain name in ‘bad faith’ to profit from NRA trademarks.”
Assessment False
Explanation
The Foundation’s domain
Official organizational documents, court filings, governance records, and related materials submitted as exhibits in this matter.
Aug 1990Articles of Incorporation
Nov 1990IRS Form 1023 – Application for Recognition of Exemption
This filing reflects the Foundation’s application to the Internal Revenue Service requesting recognition as a tax‑exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Apr 1991IRS Determination Letter Recognizing 501(c)(3) Status
This letter documents the Internal Revenue Service’s determination recognizing The NRA Foundation, Inc. as a tax‑exempt public charity under Section 501(c)(3).
Nov 2022Second Amended Complaint – District of Columbia Attorney General
The Second Amended Complaint was filed by the District of Columbia Attorney General, and it alleged governance concerns related to the NRA’s attempts to improperly control the Foundation when the NRA needed money. The Attorney General sought to ensure the Foundation’s independence from the NRA.
Apr 2024Consent Judgment – District of Columbia Attorney General
This court-entered consent judgment resolves the District of Columbia Attorney General litigation without an admission of liability and outlines agreed-upon governance and compliance measures. It was signed by the NRA and the Foundation.
Aug 2024Bylaws of The NRA Foundation, Inc. (As Amended)
These bylaws set forth the governing rules of The NRA Foundation and reflect governance changes implemented to reinforce independent oversight consistent with the District of Columbia Attorney General Consent Judgment.
Mar 20252024 Annual Report of The NRA Foundation, Inc.
This report provides audited financial statements and summarizes the Foundation’s assets, donor-restricted funds, and grant distributions, including amounts granted to NRA charitable programs for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.
Jan 2026“Friends Dinners – What Now” (External Commentary)
Public commentary quoting Doug Hamlin, CEO and EVP of the NRA, acknowledging that 501(c)(3) charitable funds must remain under the discretion and control of the charitable organization.
Feb 2026Summary of the 2026 Domain Dispute Regarding thenrafoundation.org
In February 2026, a UDRP panel terminated the domain dispute over thenrafoundation.org without ruling on the merits, deferring entirely to an ongoing federal court case between the parties.
Mar 2026NRA’s Amended Complaint
The NRA’s Amended Complaint, filed March 6, 2026, adds a new cybersquatting claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) and adds NRA officers William Bachenberg and Douglas Hamlin as individual plaintiffs. The Foundation disputes all allegations in the Amended Complaint.
Mar 2026Foundation’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
The Foundation’s renewed motion to dismiss, filed March 20, 2026, asks the Court to dismiss the NRA’s Amended Complaint with prejudice, establishing that the NRA’s claims remain legally impossible, that the NRA lacks standing to bring them, and that further amendment would be futile.
Mar 2026Foundation Articles of Amendment
The Foundation filed notice of the amendment to its Articles of Incorporation with the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Mar 2026D.C. Certificate of Good Standing
Confirming that The NRA Foundation, Inc. remains an active nonprofit corporation in good standing under the laws of the District of Columbia, operating under the name “The NRA Foundation, Inc.”
Apr 2026Foundation’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
The Foundation’s reply, filed April 24, 2026, asks the Court to grant its motion to dismiss the NRA’s Amended Complaint with prejudice, asserting that the opposition does not remedy alleged standing or legal deficiencies.
Oct 2026Foundation Prevails on Key Motions in D.C. Superior Court
The court denied the NRA’s requests for injunctive relief and partial summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Foundation, affirming important Foundation and Board actions.
The Foundation remains committed to fulfilling its charitable mission in a lawful, transparent, and responsible manner. The Foundation Board and management continue to exercise oversight and discretion of its 501(c)(3) funds raised, consistent with nonprofit law, regulatory requirements, and the Foundation’s governing documents, with the goal of protecting donor intent, charitable assets, and the Foundation’s tax-exempt status.
Updates will be provided if and when there are material developments in the legal process. To receive factual updates regarding these matters, you may submit your email below.