After months of rumors circulating about the National Rifle Association and its sister organization NRA Foundation having a defunct relationship, the Association filed a lawsuit against the Foundation. A release announcing the lawsuit alleges that the Foundation has been “operating in bad faith and withholding funds meant to support the NRA’s charitable activities.”
The NRA Foundation is a 501(c)3 that was founded in 1990 to “provide[] a means to raise millions of dollars to fund the NRA’s gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public.” Since the Foundation is a 501(c)3, donations are tax deductible.
“This is a disappointing day, and it should not have come to this,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA CEO and executive vice president. “A foundation established to support the National Rifle Association of America has taken actions that are adversarial at a time when the NRA is rebuilding and focused on its long-term mission. I am deeply disappointed that these steps were taken, leaving no reasonable alternative. This action represents a last resort. The NRA’s brand and intellectual property exist solely to benefit the National Rifle Association of America, its members, all law-abiding gun owners, and its programs and services. For generations, donors across the United States contributed funds with the clear expectation that those resources would support NRA educational and public-interest programs. It is unacceptable that those programs are now being placed at risk by actions that conflict with donor intent and the responsibilities of the foundation’s board of trustees.”
Towards the end of 2025 and into 2026, there was a mass exodus of members of the Board of Directors of the NRA. The directors who resigned were alleged to be at odds with the more reform-minded directors who have been champions of the NRA 2.0 movement. Some of those directors included David G. Coy, Charles Cotton, Bob Barr, and Sandra Froman — as well as many others.
While the exact leadership of the NRA Foundation is not readily available on their website, many of the former directors are aligned with or have been trustees of the Foundation. The Foundation failed to respond to requests (one and two) for a list of their leadership — something that’s a breach of their “Donor Bill of Rights.” All donors are “to be informed of the identity of those serving on the organization’s governing board and to expect the board to exercise prudent judgment in its stewardship responsibilities.”
According to a comment on a social media post in the “Members Take Back Our NRA” Facebook page, we have the following makeup of the Foundation’s leadership structure:
Peter Churchborn is the Executive Director and David Coy is now the Treasurer. The Trustees are: 1. Tom King, President, 2. Ronnie Barrett, VP, 3. Scott Bach, 4. Bob Barr, 5. Charles Cotton, 6. Blaine Wade, 7. Joel Friedman, 8. Barbara Rumpel, 9. Bill Carter, 10. Eb Wilkinson, 11. Dr. Stephen Plaster, 12. Regis Synan, 13. Jay Wallace, 14. Anne Draper, and 15. Greer Johnson.
The post comment came from NRA Director Jeff Knox. The validity of that list has not been confirmed. However, that’s the only information that’s been publicly shared about the Foundation’s alleged current board. [Editor’s Note – I can confirm that Peter Churchbourne is Executive Director of the Foundation and Tom King is serving as the NRA Foundation president. – Cam]
NRA Director Jonathan S. Goldstein was elected from the 2025 NRA 2.0 slate. Goldstein said in an interview about the leadership at the NRA that it’s his feeling that the majority of NRA members were “clamoring for reform” and they’ve seen how prior boards ran the Association.
“I think what you saw was members did two things in the last cycle; they voted for a handful of names that were familiar to them from their presence on the board at great length, and then they voted for a group of us to come in and begin reforming [the NRA],” Goldstein told Bearing Arms. “In the time since then, I think you’ve seen a number of those more familiar names move off the board of their own volition. Those are some of the resignations you saw in the recent weeks.”
“Those folks who had what I’ll call a less reform-minded view, decided that it was time for them to move on and maybe focus their energies in other places,” Goldstein said. “That’s how it occurs to me. I haven’t spoken to any of them about it, but if I were observing casually from afar, that’s how it appears to me.”
Of the many directors contacted for comment about their resignations, former NRA President Sandra Froman was the only one who responded to queries.
Froman said that her resignation did not have anything to do with any potential hardships, just that she’s been “enthusiastically engaged on other projects” and that life is treating her well. She shared a copy of her resignation letter, which says in part:
After dedicating over 33 years of service to the National Rifle Association as a member of the Board of Directors, including nine years holding the positions of Vice President and President, I am writing to formally resign my role as director. This decision comes as I choose to focus on personal and professional matters that require my undivided attention in the foreseeable future.
Froman’s letter went on to express her gratitude to the many friends she’s made within the NRA. She stipulated that while she’s stepping down from the BOD, that she’ll still “continue to serve on the NRA Executive Council” and that she’s looking forward to reconnecting with her colleagues at meetings and events.
It’s been rumored that the Foundation underwent some other changes. While some of those changes might have been resultant of a court order, one change raised eyebrows.
Prior to the change, the board of the Foundation was selected and elected by the NRA Board of Directors proper. It’s alleged that the Foundation trustees quietly changed their bylaws to where the BOD is no longer involved in the leadership selection; a move that Goldstein said raises serious questions.
The change makes it so the Foundation trustees would be responsible for nominating and electing one another. That also leaves them wholly responsible for/to and accountable to the other trustees — not representatives duly elected by NRA members.
“The first question is whether that sort of a change in and of itself serves the interests of the broader NRA community, right? Is that good for the broader NRA?” Goldstein mused. “And second, whether a move like that is even legitimate or lawful to the extent it was done without consultation with the NRA itself.”
Goldstein explained that the NRA was “divested of certain rights” by the Foundation’s bylaw change. If the NRA is supposed to be the prime beneficiary of the Foundation, they were divested of those voting rights without consultation. “So there are serious questions that need to be raised about whether that bylaw change is valid or even permissible,” Goldstein said.
“Who does it serve?” Goldstein asked about the bylaw change. “As we say in the law, ‘cui bono?’ Who benefits?”
The NRA Foundation did not respond to a query asking about bylaw changes.
The January 5, 2026 36-page filing in NRA v. NRA Foundation addresses these allegations.
“The Foundation’s board attempted to sever the historic connection between the two organizations and entrench the Old Guard’s control to of the Foundation through a bylaw amendment purporting to eliminate the NRA Board’s right to appoint Foundation trustees and providing instead that the Foundation’s board would be self-perpetuating—that is, its trustees would elect themselves,” the lawsuit alleges. “The Foundation’s board attempted to remove the limitation on the number of trustees authorized under its articles of incorporation, to permit further stacking of the Board by the Old Guard.”
The filing further notes that the bylaw change attempts were both not “necessary to comply with any legal requirement or obligation” and “in violation of the Foundation’s governing documents and the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act.”
NRA’s release further explains why the lawsuit is necessary:
When NRA members voted to elect a new leadership committed to reform, transparency, and member accountability, the foundation’s hold-over leaders sought to end the foundation’s affiliate relationship with the NRA and now seek to substantially curtail its support of the NRA—notwithstanding that its assets were raised by the NRA, using the NRA name and trademarks, for the benefit of the NRA’s charitable programs. The NRA’s lawsuit seeks rulings preventing the Foundation from infringing the NRA’s trademarks, misappropriating funds contributed to support the NRA’s charitable programs, and blocking the foundation’s attempt to break away from the NRA.
Sources close to the matter said that negotiations with the Foundation had been ongoing for months. After many failed attempts to get the Foundation leadership to uphold what the NRA says is their duty, the Association was left with their only form of remedy — litigation.
NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin addressed the NRA staff in a separate message that Bearing Arms obtained. That message read in part:
Sadly, over the past year, the leadership at the NRA Foundation has deteriorated the relationship with greater NRA. This includes withholding critical funds needed to run our organization and stripping the NRA of oversight of the foundation. Despite refusing to work with and assist the NRA, the foundation has continued to use our branding and intellectual property to raise money meant to support our operation.
When hard-working Americans donate their money to support their Second Amendment rights, they should be able to rest assured that those dollars are being used for good, not as a bargaining chip in internal power struggles at the NRA. For years, you and your fellow coworkers have worked tirelessly to rebuild our image and the trust of donors throughout the country. Because of this, we cannot sit idly by while bad actors operate in bad faith to harm our organization and tarnish our brand once again.
Something Hamlin emphasized is that the lawsuit would not affect any Association or Foundation staff members. “This is a leadership issue, and the bad behavior of a select few do not reflect on the organization as a whole,” Hamlin said. He further asserted that “the actions of certain leaders at the foundation have left us no choice” other than to litigate.
Many who have been following the NRA closely over the last few years have been watching this drama slowly unfold in front of them. However, many rank-and-flle NRA members haven’t been aware of this conflict that’s been brewing. To quote Hamlin, it is disappointing that it’s come down to this. Foundation President Tom King did not respond to Bearing Arms’ request for comment.
The full filing of NRA v. NRA Foundation can be read HERE as well as NRA’s release HERE.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
