Nope, I was wrong. See Post #17
That NBC News report lands squarely in "Cool story, bro" territory. One can only wonder why they ran with it.
The underlying assertion -- i.e., that Trump acted with intention in having the BATF produce the revised regulation that re-defined "machinegun" to include a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock, with the confident expectation that the Supreme Court would eventually overturn this new regulatory definition -- is the height of fantasy.
In the first place, there could have been no assurance at all, at the time the BATF promulgated the revised regulation, that any subsequent challenge to the regulation would ever make it to the Supreme Court. Indeed, as the Court made clear in its decision today, it granted certiorari in the case in order to resolve a Circuit split: i.e., in previously decided cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had held that the BATF's revised definition of "machinegun" was not authorized by the National Firearms Act of 1934, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had held the exact opposite. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ruling on a request for an injunction, held that the party bringing a challenge to the BATF's revised definition was "unlikely to succeed on the merits."
As for the litigation below in the Cargill case itself, the U.S District Court had upheld the BATF's revised definition, and, on review, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the District Court's ruling. Thereafter, however, on rehearing en banc, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the panel's decision and found that the BATF's revised definition was contrary to the language of the National Firearms Act.
Given this history, and given that other Courts of Appeals had landed in different places, it seems evident that, on the merits, this was actually a pretty close call, as a matter of statutory interpretation. In light of this, that Trump did what he did, in the confident expectation that his cynical (if, perhaps, politically adroit) ploy would turn out the way it did, is rather too incredible to credit.
Again, I don't know what NBC News intends by the tale it has spun out here, but this story reeks of fake news.