SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
civil liberties
'Criminalizing Dissent': Alarm Grows Over Extreme Prison Terms for Texas ICE Protesters
“Now anyone engaged in basic protests with the wrong political beliefs can be labeled a domestic terrorist, when they have no intention of violence," said one attorney.
Jun 26, 2026
Alarm and outrage mounted this week following a federal judge's lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell," with some observers calling the extreme punishments—including 30 years for moving a box of constitutionally protected pamphlets—a test case for criminalizing dissent.
Eight members of the "Prairieview Nine"—part of a larger group of activists who staged a July 4, 2025 protest outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Alvarado, Texas—were sentenced Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment.
Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, was sentenced to 100 years for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses, including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting. Song, a former US Marine, contends that he shot Gross in self-defense after the officer drew his gun first.
The “explosives” in question were fireworks brought to the July 4 protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive.
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Those documents were leftist pamphlets protected by the First Amendment.
Rueda's husband, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, was hit with a 30-year prison sentence for conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box full of the pamphlets after speaking with his wife. He did not attend the protest.
Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a favorite of right-wing judge shoppers, told the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology” with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday’s proceedings.
The Prairieland sentences were more severe than the longest prison term for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by President Donald Trump—as well as for convicted child sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
"What happened on Tuesday, it’s shocking to all of us, devastating to the families, 50- to 100-year sentences," Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and lawyer to one of the Prairieland defendants, told Democracy Now! on Thursday. "Those are essentially life sentences for all of the young people in this case, largely of whom were engaged in nonviolent protest at an ICE detention facility."
A group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in jail on Tuesday, after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell."
The activists attended a protest and noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE jail in Alvarado, Texas.… pic.twitter.com/QxFMPaGsvj
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) June 25, 2026
Khalid noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) invoked a rarely used "material support for terrorism" statute that "does not require any connection to a domestic terrorist organization or any kind."
"Any American can be targeted that way now. It does not require ties to antifa or to any domestic terrorist organization," she said. "That’s a dangerous precedent, and what allowed them to stack these charges so high on Tuesday."
The DOJ hailed “the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following... Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization in September 2025" in the wake of the assassination of white supremacist influencer Charlie Kirk—which had nothing to do with antifa, a decentralized and leaderless international ideology opposing fascism that's more of a mindset than a movement.
Later that month, Trump also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” that focuses exclusively on left-wing activities and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Khalid pointed to the pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, who "were involved in rioting, carrying massive arsenals of weapons, lots of discussions ahead of time—that didn’t exist in this case—about targeting law enforcement, wanting to kill members of Congress, [and] actually storming the Capitol."
"So, we have a massive, unwarranted sentencing disparity here," she said. "What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Mark Osler, a law professor and sentencing expert at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told The Guardian on Friday that "the 30-year sentence for Estrada is probably the one that for most people will come closest to shocking the conscience, simply because this is an activity that took place after the harm occurred."
"What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, underscored during a Friday interview in an episode of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Counterspin podcast titled "Criminalizing Dissent" that Estrada "wasn't even at the protest."
"He's somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets because his wife was at the protest," Stern said. "And he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife... so he was concealing evidence."
"Evidence of what?" he continued. "This wasn't a how-to manual... They were zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland detention facility, about shooting this police officer... So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these zines, evidence of what? It's evidence of an ideology. It's evidence of somebody's reading habits."
"And now they're on the same plane as terrorists, as [Islamic State], according to this administration," Stern added. "It's all pretty absurd. But at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write, or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions. But the law is only as good as the people who enforce it."
Jeremy Busby, an incarcerated journalist, wrote on the eve of Estrada's trial that the "homespun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment."
"But the government’s concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal," he argued. “Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester’s husband’s parents’ house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated.”
Amber Lowrey, the sister of Prairieland defendant Savanna Batten—who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for material support for terrorism and conspiracy to use and using "explosives" (fireworks)—told The Guardian before Batten's trial that the Trump administration just wants "to make an example of people and silence anyone who... opposes the government."
"They want to silence dissent, criminalize dissent," she added.
Trump administration prosecutors have also invoked NSPM-7 in the case of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers, who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant crackdown in Minneapolis, where US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti were separately killed earlier this year by ICE and Border Patrol officers.
"We live under a fascist state where ICE agents can murder us with impunity, yet we can go to prison for 50 years for protesting," socialist commentator and journalist Ryan Knight said Thursday on X. "The unjust sentences of the Prairieland protesters violate the First Amendment and infringe on our rights to fight back against a tyrannical government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'New Red Scare': ICE Protester Gets 30 Years for Leftist Zines Under Trump Antifa Decree
"The Prairieland model is in motion: inflate anti-ICE protest into a terrorism narrative, then use the courts to punish people for being part of a movement," said one observer.
Jun 23, 2026
Civil liberties defenders sounded the alarm Tuesday over the draconian prison sentences imposed on a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a non-existent "North Texas Antifa Cell"—including a 30-year term for a man convicted of moving a box containing leftist literature.
In what the US Department of Justice (DOJ) called "the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa following President Donald J. Trump’s executive order designating the group as a Domestic Terrorist Organization in September 2025," the defendants were sentenced in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment for actions in connection with a July 4, 2025 protest at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, an ICE lockup run by prison profiteer LaSalle Corrections.
Despite DOJ documents showing that none of the defendants identified as Antifa—which does not exist as an organization, but is rather mostly an anti-fascist ideology and, to a lesser extent, a decentralized international movement—the targeted individuals were called "members of a North Texas Antifa Cell."
Prosecutors speciously called them "part of a larger militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to an ideology that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law."
The group Support the Prairieland Defendants said that relatives and supporters of the defendants "sat stunned as US District Judges Mark Pittman and Reed O’Connor delivered sentences ranging from 30-100 years in prison." They called the punishment "cruel, callous, and starkly disproportionate to the defendants’ actions."
On the night of the Prairieland protest, the group of convicted activists gathered outside what critics have called a concentration camp for what was meant to be a noise demonstration in solidarity with detainees. The group set off fireworks, and some participants vandalized property by spray-painting slogans, damaging a guard station, and damaging vehicles.
When law enforcement responded, a gunman fired from a wooded area and wounded Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross in the neck. Prosecutors characterized the event as a coordinated attack, while defense attorneys argued that most participants intended only to protest and did not plan or expect violence.
Former US Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Gross, was sentenced to 100 years, officially for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting.
The "explosives" in question were fireworks brought to the Fourth of July protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Song said he acted in defense of his comrades.
"When I saw... Gross stop pursuing and point his gun at the back of a running, unarmed protester, like he testified, I was terrified," he said on Tuesday. "As a firearms instructor and a United States Marine Corps veteran, I understood what I was seeing. I knew what it meant for someone to lean forward into a gun, like he testified, to prepare for recoil."
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Critics said her "crime" was protesting ICE oppression and asking her husband to move a box.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive. Critics said their "crime" was attending a protest.
Seven others—Seth Sikes, Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Susan Kent, Rebecca Morgan, Lynette Sharp, and John Thomas—have already pleaded guilty to one count each of providing material support to terrorists and are set to be sentenced on July 1. Ines Soto, who is married to Elizabeth Soto, was convicted of the same offenses as her spouse and was granted a continuance. She is also set to be sentenced on July 1.
Most disturbingly, say free speech defenders, is the 30-year prison sentence imposed on Daniel "Des" Rolando Sanchez Estrada for conspiracy to conceal documents.
Under the auspices of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7)—signed by Trump following last year's assassination of racist influencer Charlie Kirk in an effort to target leftists—Sanchez was accused of “corruptly concealing a document or record” after he moved a box containing leftist literature, including zines titled "Another Critique of Insurrectionalism," "It's Vacant, Take It!," and "War In the Streets: Tactical Lessons From the Global Civil War Vol. I."
Prosecutors alleged that Sanchez moved the box in a bid to avoid incriminating Rueda, who is his wife.
Prior to his sentencing, Sanchez—who is a green card holder—told the court that "I worked really hard every day in this country, and I believe in human rights and helping others in need. I donate money and art to help animals and other people."
"I’m a father, a husband, and a teacher," he added. "But I’m not a terrorist.”
Judge O'Connor was not moved, telling the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to "send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology" with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday's proceedings.
"These sentences are a travesty and totally unjustified, but that's the point," Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said on social media. "Americans hate the fascist Trump regime, so the only way they can try to cling to power is brute force. NSPM-7 is a grave threat to all of us, and more bullshit 'terrorism' charges like these are coming."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation said in response to Tuesday's sentencing, "The zines at issue may have discussed controversial political views, but they said nothing about the shooting or the Prairieland protest, and prosecutors did not allege that Sanchez’s wife... fired any shots or had anything to do with the shooting."
Seth Stern, Freedom of the Press Foundation's advocacy chief, said in a statement that "if prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s."
"Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing?" he continued. "Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause."
“Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the US bankrolls," Stern said.
"Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members—they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the endgame," he added.
The prison terms for the Prairieland defendants were more severe than the longest sentences for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by Trump.
Arjun Sethi, a professor at Georgetown Law and Vanderbilt Law School, said on social media that "if you care about free speech and protest one iota, you should be aghast at the sentences just handed down in the Prairieland case."
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Fort Worth secretary Moishe Dovgolevsky called the sentences "the face of the new Red Scare."
Ana Marie Thorne, chair of the Social Justice Committee at All People’s Church Unitarian Universalist in Fort Worth, said that “as a congregation, we decided that this case was a fundamental test of our right to dissent against authoritarian regimes."
“These defendants are not militant monsters out to kill,” she added. “They are everyday people who saw our country literally interning people in concentration camps and decided to show up at Prairieland Detention Center to let those incarcerated there know that they mattered. We leave here today knowing that the outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning.”
Moira Meltzer-Cohen, an attorney representing defendants in the case, said following Tuesday's sentencing that "this entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
"But the way forward is not silence, it is courageous solidarity with those who are being punished on the basis of their protected beliefs, associations, and activities," she added. "And as devastating as this has been for those affected, I do believe their rights will be vindicated in the post-conviction process."
"This entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
Song warned the American people Tuesday that while "strangers" may be targeted today, "it will be you tomorrow."
"There is no group called Antifa. Everyone knows that, but this government is so blinded by hate... they want to bury me with an idea," he said. "This idea that they hate is the very idea of being against fascism."
"What kind of people are not against fascism?" he continued. "What kind of people are not against the hate and war and genocide and concentration camps that the Nazis brought upon the world?"
"The hate has migrated into the government," Song warned. "Now that hate is taking power over me. It is taking power over you, over your words and your ideas. When will you be called a domestic terrorist, too?"
In Minneapolis, US Attorney Daniel Rosen—who was appointed by Trump last year—last week invoked NSPM-7 in the prosecution of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers Collective who Rosen claims are linked to Antifa and who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown.
"When they killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, they went on TV, and they called them domestic terrorists, the same day, within the hour," Song said, referring to two US citizens shot dead by Trump administration immigration enforcers in Minneapolis. "When will that happen to you?"
"I don’t fear for myself," he added. "I fear for all of you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s New 'Counterterrorism' Strategy Is a Sweeping Attack on Domestic Dissent
The administration is using national security as a pretext to target protesters, civil rights groups, and vulnerable communities. Here is how we fight back.
May 15, 2026
On May 6, 2026, the Trump administration released its latest conspiracy-laden attack on “the left,” this time in the form of a “counterterrorism strategy". While laughably lacking in evidence or regard for laws, the “strategy” will have serious, deadly consequences. It sets our country’s counterterror apparatus and racist, anti-Muslim goals against the Global South, Europe, and all those here at home who have the nerve to demand their rights and oppose full-fledged autocracy.
In this post, I will focus on the domestic implications, although the global impacts are both frightening and impossible to fully separate, as the strategy conflates everything from domestic resistance movements to people with disfavored ideologies to drug trafficking with international terrorism.
The strategy is authored by Sebastian Gorka, a known anti-Muslim bigot whom former counterterrorism officials pan as “ill-informed” and a “huckster.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this so-called “strategy” is basically a cocktail of fearmongering and post-9/11 playbook, but on steroids. It incorporates and expands on the president’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, which casts a sweeping set of dissenting views as (domestic) terrorism, plays up fears of a “new alliance” between leftists and “Islamists,” and completely ignores the documented threats of right-wing and white supremacist extremists.
This is all hauntingly familiar. For generations, federal agencies have surveilled, monitored, and targeted Black, immigrant, Muslim, Middle Eastern, Asian, Indigenous, and other people of color, using surveillance as a tool of intimidation and enforcement that deepens racial inequities instead of making people safer.
Communities that have historically borne the brunt of government overreach will once again suffer the greatest harm. But this sweeping attack on dissent affects everyone, threatening the foundations of our free society.
For example, the strategy promises to wield massive law enforcement, surveillance, and other counterterror powers to “map” and "neutralize" groups it describes as "anti‑American, radically pro‑transgender, and anarchist." In the post-9/11 era, the New York Police Department attempted to map all Muslims and their institutions in the Tri-State Area, for which Muslim Advocates, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Gibbons P.C. successfully sued in 2012. We have long seen our community and sacred spaces violated by informants and oppressive surveillance.
The document also states that the US government will "[i]dentify terror actors and plots before they happen,” (emphasis added) which sounds dystopian, but is the same false logic underlying the notorious Countering Violent Extremism program that targeted American Muslims in the post-9/11 era.
In Gorka's reported comments to the press, he doubled down on targeting "ideology” and preventive policing: “We see a threat… we will crush it, whether it is the cartels, the jihadists, or violent left-wing extremists like antifa and like the transgender killers, the non-binary, the left-wing radicals.”
These practices have caused lasting trauma and generational impact for Muslims, stifling our religious and political expression and wrecking intra-community trust. Now the government is wolfishly expanding while few seem to notice. Gorka himself said, “We are moving so fast, they just can’t keep up with us, which is delicious.”
A Sweeping Attack on Dissent
Indeed, the breadth of attacks on protesters, dissenters, and civil rights organizations is overwhelming. A few examples:
- This administration slandered Renee Good and Alex Pretti as domestic terrorists after its own officers shot each of them dead in broad daylight, contravening overwhelming bystander and video evidence.
- Prairieland case: Eight anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protesters were convicted of material support for terrorism; raided; and had their flyers, zines, and use of encrypted chats cited in the indictment as evidence of their connection to terrorism.
- “Domestic terrorist” database: In January, an ICE officer told a legal observer, “[W]e have a nice little database, and now you're considered a domestic terrorist." When pressed at a congressional hearing, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons denied that a database of American “domestic terrorists” exists, but in a subsequent hearing, former Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to deny it.
- In late April, federal prosecutors indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has documented violent white supremacists for decades.
Communities that have historically borne the brunt of government overreach will once again suffer the greatest harm. But this sweeping attack on dissent affects everyone, threatening the foundations of our free society.
What can we do?
Make noise: Call attention to the harms of this counterterror “strategy.” Its release during congressional recess let it fly under the radar, although Ranking Member of House Homeland Security Committee Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) noted its lack of strategy and called again for a hearing with officials. Other elected officials should likewise take action to condemn this latest attack on dissent, demand transparency about its implementation and adherence to the Constitution, and protect our rights.
Congress also has an immediate opportunity to curb vast surveillance powers enabled by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702. Congressional leadership has so far blocked bipartisan efforts to pass a warrant requirement for searches of people in the US, and before accessing our intimate details through data-broker purchases. Lawmakers have until June 12 to enact basic protections for people in the US. This counterterror strategy—along with the recent whispers of its potential use against right-wing dissenters from Trumpism—shows exactly why we must urgently rein in the government's massive counterterror arsenal, starting with 702’s warrantless spy power.
Demand that local governments refuse to cooperate with the federal government, divest and remove surveillance technology, and withdraw from Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF’s), which deputize local law enforcement to do the feds’ bidding and share information pursuant to its permissive interpretations of federal law.
Collectively, we must continue to demand our rights: to protest, to speak, to commune, and to live free from Big Brother—especially Big Brother with a gun. Remember: The overwhelm we feel isn’t an accident; it’s tactical. Refuse to allow the administration’s intimidation tactics to succeed. Our mass, unapologetic refusal to comply, is what’s truly “delicious.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Replacing Bovino With Homan Won't Change ICE's Tactics in Minneapolis
Bovino’s departure changes nothing about ICE’s lawless behavior on the ground. If anything, the situation has become more volatile.
Jan 31, 2026
The recent firing of Greg Bovino, the face of Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, was clearly intended to serve as a pressure-release valve for a city at its breaking point. For weeks, we have watched federal agents transform our neighborhoods into a theater of intimidation, characterized by warrantless stops, the brutalization of peaceful protestors, and the killings of two constitutional observers, captured on video and now seen by the majority of Americans.
By replacing Bovino with Border Czar Tom Homan, the administration likely hopes to signal a new direction or a cooling of tensions. But no one should be fooled. Firing a commander is an empty act of appeasement when the machinery of the operation itself remains fully fueled and operational. Bovino’s departure changes nothing about ICE’s lawless behavior on the ground. If anything, the situation has become more volatile.
The timing of this leadership shuffle is particularly cynical when viewed alongside the latest developments in the federal judiciary. On Monday night, the Eighth Circuit granted the Department of Justice (DOJ) a full stay on the injunction previously secured by Judge Katherine Menendez. That injunction was the only thin line of defense protecting protesters from ICE violence and retaliation. With that stay in place, federal agents have been handed a blank check to target activists and constitutional observers in ways that Menendez had previously found unconstitutional.
Operation Metro Surge was never about public safety in the way most Minnesotans understand it. It is a display of federal power, designed to bypass local oversight and treat our state as an occupied zone because the current administration doesn’t like our social welfare policies. Bovino was a symptom of this strategy, not its sole architect.
Minneapolis does not need a new commander, it needs Operation Metro Surge to end.
The tactics of intimidation, unmarked vehicles, lack of clear identification, and the racial profiling of community members is baked into the Operation Metro Surge’s DNA. Changing a public-facing figure while maintaining the underlying tactics only creates a more dangerous environment. It allows the operation to continue under a veil of "reform" while ICE’s mandate continues to broaden, and the reality on the street remains one of fear and violence.
I believe we are now entering the most dangerous phase of ICE’s enforcement operations in Minnesota. The combination of a leadership changeup and a legal victory for the DOJ has created a perfect storm. History shows us that when law enforcement agencies feel vindicated by the courts and pressured by optics, they do not retreat, they push forward, and citizen vigilantes come to their defense.
The attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday was primed by years of dehumanizing rhetoric against her, prompted by ICE’s illegal actions in Minneapolis, and executed by a lone-wolf reactionary in an attempt to silence calls for abolition. When the administration labels “disrespect” as a capital offense, and has pushed the rule of law to its breaking point, we should not be surprised when citizens take it in their hands to “enforce” the new law.
Minneapolis does not need a new commander, it needs Operation Metro Surge to end. The replacement of Bovino is a tactical retreat, a cosmetic change meant to buy time. If we accept Homan’s takeover as "progress," we are consenting to the continued erosion of our civil liberties and political culture. A leadership shakeup doesn’t change anything; it’s just a convenient news cycle that the Trump administration would prefer for us to focus on. Don’t give them your attention. Keep watching the streets of Minneapolis and the actions of our federal courts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Agent Tells Maine ICE Observer She's Going in 'Nice Little Database' for 'Domestic Terrorists'
"Ironically these kinds of threats do more to radicalize opposition to ICE," said one observer.
Jan 23, 2026
A masked federal immigration enforcement agent was caught on camera this week telling a legal observer in Maine that she was being put in a database for purported "domestic terrorists."
At the start of a video that spread across social media on Friday, the masked agent appears to be scanning a license plate number before walking toward the woman recording him.
The woman informs the agent that it's legal for her to record and then asks him why he's trying to gather information on her.
"Because we have a nice little database, and now you're considered a domestic terrorist," the agent responds.
At this point the woman starts laughing incredulously at him.
"For videotaping you?!" she asks him. "Are you crazy?!"
ICE agent in Portland, Maine tells legal observer she is a domestic terrorist for peacefully recording him, adds her to "nice little database" pic.twitter.com/6miHpXUdT7
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) January 23, 2026
Democrats on the US House Homeland Security Committee were quick to denounce the actions of the agent on the video.
"Big government Republicans have unleashed a secret police state on peaceful American citizens," they wrote in a social media post. "This should shake every American to their core."
Other critics, however, noted that it isn't just Republicans who have been supporting the right-wing police state. Seven US House Democrats, including Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), voted with the vast majority of Republicans on Thursday to give US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) an additional $10 billion.
"Corporate Democrats are complicit with the full breakdown of our constitutional rights," commented Sunrise Movement.
Greg Krieg, media director at political consulting firm Slingshot Strategies, took particular aim at Golden for shoveling more money to ICE despite documented evidence of agents violating Americans' civil liberties.
"Thank you Jared Golden, special man who understands Maine better than anyone on the planet, for telling us how much people actually like this horseshit," he wrote sarcastically.
Nico Perrino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the agent's behavior crossed a line that should be condemned by Americans of all political persuasions.
"I hope the vast majority of freedom-loving Americans are uncomfortable with the idea," he wrote, "that masked police are now telling people engaged in First Amendment-protected activity that they are 'domestic terrorists' who will be added to a secret government database."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, predicted that federal agents' aggressive taunts against legal observers would backfire politically against the Trump administration.
"Ironically these kinds of threats do more to radicalize opposition to ICE tactics than they do to stop people from recording ICE," he observed.
Isaac Saul, founder of Tangle News, also thought the optics of the Maine video were terrible for Republicans.
"It's hard to overstate how unpopular this crap is with normie Americans," Saul wrote. "On top of the gross civil rights violations, that Trump is letting these goons loose in Maine, a state where Democrats could actually pick up a Senate seat in nine months, it's political malpractice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
You Could Be on Trump's Enemies List, But the Mainstream Media Won't Warn You
A new Department of Justice memo is another giant step towards authoritarianism; however, establishment media didn’t see it that way.
Dec 12, 2025
The Trump FBI is drawing up an enemies list that could encompass well over half the US public: Do you “advance… opposition to law and immigration enforcement”? Do you have “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders”? Show an “adherence to radical gender ideology,” meaning you think trans people exist? Do you exhibit (what the Trump administration would interpret as) “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” or “anti-Christianity”? Do you display “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality”?
Congratulations—you may be headed for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.” “Terrorism,” of course, is the magic word that strips you of all sorts of legal protections, especially in the post-9/11 era.
This is from a Justice Department memo obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein (12/6/25)—which goes on to instruct the FBI to set up “a cash reward system” for people who turn in those promoting such thoughtcrime, and “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of groups with these dangerous ideas.
This is the implementation of the Trump administration’s avowed policy of criminalizing dissent—in the words of the NSPM-7 decree, outlawing “organized campaigns of… radicalization… designed to… change or direct policy outcomes” (FAIR.org, 10/3/25; CounterSpin, 10/17/25)—and as such is another giant step towards authoritarianism. Establishment media didn’t see it that way, however.
To get actual coverage of the threat DOJ is posing to civil liberties and democracy itself, you had to go to independent outlets.
As Klippenstein (12/9/25) pointed out, virtually no corporate media outlets covered this catastrophic memo, and those who did report on it did a generally poor job. The Guardian headline (12/5/25) was “Pam Bondi Tells Law Enforcement Agencies to Investigate Antifa Groups for ‘Tax Crimes,’” and Bloomberg Law (12/5/25) had “Bondi Orders FBI Extremism Intelligence Review with Antifa Focus”—completely misleading framing that suggests that if you’re not “Antifa,” the memo isn’t about you.
Here’s Reuters‘ entirely unhelpful “summary” (12/4/25):
- Bondi orders FBI to prioritize domestic terrorism investigations
- Memo targets antifa and similar groups
- FBI to develop strategies to disrupt criminal networks
- DOJ calls for prosecuting extremist groups for tax crimes
The DOJ is issuing marching orders for a witch hunt, and Reuters presents it with a straight face as an effort to go after “domestic terrorism,” “criminal networks,” and “extremist groups” who commit “tax crimes.” Who could object to that?
Among corporate media outlets, only The Hill (12/5/25), a specialty outlet aimed at congressional staffers and lobbyists, conveyed the enormity of the directive. Its second paragraph read:
Bondi’s memo could be the starting point for charges against a number of left-leaning advocacy groups and nonprofits the Trump administration has accused without evidence of having ties to extremists.
The Hill‘s Rebecca Beitsch quoted Andrew Bataj of the group Whistleblower Aid, “This memo expressly seeks to redefine political dissent against the president as domestic terrorism.”
But beyond that, to get actual coverage of the threat DOJ is posing to civil liberties and democracy itself, you had to go to independent outlets like Democracy Now! (12/8/25) and the Lever (12/8/25). The counterrevolution will not be televised.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Threatens to Invoke Insurrection Act, Take 'Unquestioned Power' Following No Kings Protests
Trump claimed that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, "there are no more court cases, there is no more anything."
Oct 20, 2025
While the nation was fixated on President Donald Trump’s deranged social media antics in response to this weekend’s "No Kings" protests, he managed to slip under the radar with some ominous threats to substantially expand his power.
The president generated bewilderment and outrage when, in response to the mass mobilization of more than 7 million Americans against his abuses of power, he posted an artificially-generated video of himself wearing a crown and flying a fighter jet emblazoned with “King Trump” that dumped what appeared to be a pile of excrement upon demonstrators in the middle of Times Square.
The public was understandably preoccupied with the president of the United States posting a video of himself “literally dumping shit on America,” which Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch called “metaphorically the most accurate piece of propaganda he’s put out this year.”
But it served as a useful distraction as Trump implied that he may use these protests as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act, which he incorrectly suggested gives him “unquestioned power.”
“Don’t forget, I can use the Insurrection Act,” Trump said in a Fox News interview Sunday morning. “Fifty percent of the presidents almost have used that. And that’s unquestioned power. I choose not to.”
“I’d rather do this,” he said, referring to his deployment of the National Guard to American cities, including Chicago, Portland, and now San Francisco, which he announced as his next target last week. “But I’m met constantly by fake politicians, politicians that think that they—you know, it’s not a part of the radical left movement to have safety. These cities have to be safe.”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to direct federal troops to enforce US law in cases of extreme emergency, including rebellions against the federal government, beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement. Contrary to Trump’s claim, it has only been invoked by about a quarter of US presidents.
The last president to invoke the act was George H.W. Bush, in response to the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King in 1992. Other presidents invoked it during times of extreme upheaval or war, including President Abraham Lincoln, who used it during the Civil War, and Ulysses S. Grant, who used it to suppress terrorism against newly freed Black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan across the South.
It has not historically been used to put down peaceful protests, like this past weekend’s No Kings marches, which frequently emphasize their commitment to nonviolence.
It is unclear what precisely Trump referred to when he said “that’s unquestioned power.” He may have meant that he has unquestioned power to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is also not true.
The law gives the president the power to invoke it in response to “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” which has made it “impracticable to enforce the laws... by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Though the Supreme Court has largely granted the president the authority to determine what forms of unrest may meet these criteria, Joseph Nunn, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, explained earlier this year that "there are exceptions to the general rule that courts can’t review a president’s decision to deploy" forces:
The Supreme Court has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds "a permitted range of honest judgment," makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.
Even in cases where the courts will not second-guess the decision to deploy troops, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample on constitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.
Comments made by Trump aboard Air Force One later on Sunday suggest a different meaning to his claim of “unquestioned power,” that he was not referring to his ability to invoke the act, but rather saying it gives him authority to act unilaterally without any intervention from the courts.
“Everybody agrees you’re allowed to use [the Insurrection Act], and there are no more court cases, there is no more anything. We’re trying to do it in a nicer manner, but we can always use the Insurrection Act,” he continued. “We wanted to go this route, but we get sued every time you look at somebody, you look at somebody the wrong way, and you end up getting sued. We just want no crime.”
Trump has indeed been sued over his deployment of federal troops to American cities, including in Portland, where a judge ruled earlier this month that his claim that the city was “war-ravaged” was “untethered to facts,” as the protests there against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
It was also unclear what Trump meant when he said that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, “there are no more court cases, there is no more anything.” The comment seemed to imply that he believes that the Insurrection Act is tantamount to martial law, where the normal forms of due process do not apply, and the courts have no recourse to intervene against abuses of power.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff, implied a similar unchallenged power earlier this month when he asserted that Trump has “plenary,” meaning practically limitless, “authority” to use the military on US soil, however he sees fit. Miller earlier this year also suggested suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the right to challenge unlawful detention, for immigrants.
Trump previously discussed invoking martial law with his advisers in 2020 in an effort to hold onto power following his election loss and later suggested that the supposed “fraud” in his election loss “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
But as Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, explains, even if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, which he predicted, “is likelier than not,” it doesn’t give him the power to suspend the Constitution, at least not legally.
“None of this is true,” Craig said. “The Insurrection Act is not a declaration of martial law. It doesn’t close the courts. It doesn’t suspend habeas corpus. It means you can use the military to enforce federal laws, but the laws themselves remain the same.”
“There are lots of disasters waiting to happen in how much we have wired up to pure presidential power,” he continued. “But one thing we don’t have is some state-of-exception button the president can push and instantly become an absolute dictator. That’s not a thing in American law. No emergency power encompasses it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Grave Danger—and Blinding Idiocy—of Trump's NSPM-7
We cannot predict exactly how this authoritaruan presidential memo will be implemented or provide legal advice on the specific questions groups and individuals may have, but here, we lay out what the Memo does not do, what it aims to do, and what it cannot do.
Oct 16, 2025
Nonprofits, their donors, and activists striving for a more equal, just, and fair country and world are core components of American civil society. Yet on September 25, President Donald Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” essentially adding them to an ever-growing list of what he calls the “enemy within.”
Civil society nonprofits and activists thus join segments of academia, the legal profession, public health professionals and scientists, and so many others President Trump sees as his political opponents and critics. For all of us seeking to uphold the Constitution, fundamental human rights, and civil liberties, it’s almost a badge of courage and honor.
On its face, NSPM-7 is chilling to read: If anyone needed proof that “terrorism” and “political violence” are slippery and fraught categories subject to political, ideological, and racial manipulation and bias—well, this is it.
Like the president’s investigation into the Open Society Foundations and his order purporting to designate “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” which is not a thing!), NSPM-7 is a deliberate attempt to sow fear and intimidate and silence opposition to the president’s abuses. But true strength in this country comes not from political leaders engaged in fearmongering and political vendettas; it comes from our vibrant civil society, activists, and communities steadfastly pursuing the goals of equality, fairness, and democracy for all. We must not let ourselves be cowed.
The memo is a fever dream of conspiracies, outright falsehoods, and the president’s distorted equation of criticism of his policies by real or perceived political opponents with “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.”
We cannot predict exactly how the memo will be implemented or provide legal advice on the specific questions groups and individuals may have, but here, we lay out what the Memo does not do, what it aims to do, and what it cannot do.
The bottom line in cutting through the noise of reprehensible and irresponsible presidential rhetoric and actions is this: No president can rewrite the Constitution and the safeguards we have under it. These safeguards most emphatically include our First Amendment-protected freedoms of belief, speech, and association; our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; our Fifth Amendment right to due process; and our right to Equal Protection under the laws of this country. Under the 14th Amendment, these due process and equal protection rights apply equally to actions taken by federal and state agencies against tax-exempt nonprofits.
What NSPM-7 Does Not Do
A key thing to know is that the presidential memorandum does not create any new federal powers or crimes.
When the president refers in the memo to “designation” of groups as “domestic terrorism organizations,” that rhetorical label is dangerously stigmatizing and harsh, but it does not in itself have legal force and the president does not cite any authority for it. That is because, unlike for “foreign terrorism,” there is no “domestic terrorism” labelling or designation regime. Congress has passed no law creating any such domestic designation regime, and for very good reason: it would inevitably sweep in First Amendment-protected beliefs, associations, and speech. No matter where civil society groups and activists might fall across the ideological spectrum, from far left to far right, nonpartisan to partisan, religious or not, everyone’s First Amendment rights would be at risk. For that reason, there is also no standalone crime of “domestic terrorism.”
Put another way, any political, legal, or social definition of “terrorism” includes ideological motivation, and there are very serious First Amendment problems with attaching criminal or other sanctions to people or groups based on ideology or belief as opposed to actual, serious criminal conduct—which is already unlawful.
The fact remains: in this country, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and to act on them lawfully without fear of punishment, no matter how extreme or disfavored the government thinks those beliefs are.
What NSPM-7 Aims to Do
The memo is a fever dream of conspiracies, outright falsehoods, and the president’s distorted equation of criticism of his policies by real or perceived political opponents with “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.” It stitches together a few disparate, serious acts of actual or attempted criminal conduct with First Amendment-protected beliefs and protests against the president and his policies, and wrongly conflates them as “political violence.” It ignores what any responsible understanding of actual political violence would make clear: political violence does not fit into neat ideological buckets and while increasing in frequency, it remains rare. After all, the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by the president’s supporters is a paradigmatic example of actual political violence, but NSPM-7 pointedly fails even to mention it.
Perhaps the most chilling rhetorical move the president makes is to use vague, broad labels that, even if true—and there’s good reason to question the truth of virtually all of the memo’s assertions—encompass First Amendment-protected beliefs unconnected to any actual criminal conduct. These labels include: “Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” “support for the overthrow of” the federal government, “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and opposition to “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” The president even bizarrely imagines that “support for law enforcement and border control” are “foundational American principles” that his political opponents paint as “fascist” to encourage violence. No wonder many in civil society see NSPM-7’s rhetoric as a threat to human rights, civil liberties, and democracy-building work.
Through the memo, the president instructs federal departments and law enforcement agencies to use authorities they already have and focus them on investigations of civil society groups — including nonprofits, activists, and donors—to “disrupt” and “prevent” the president’s fever-dream version of “terrorism” and “political violence.”
NSPM-7 Uses Already Vague, Overbroad, and Abused Federal “Domestic Terrorism” Powers
To understand the fundamentals of these existing authorities—and how they are abused— it helps to know what is already on the books. When Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in 2001, it defined domestic terrorism as acts that are dangerous to human life and already criminal, which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy or conduct. Again, this definition is not itself a “domestic terrorism” crime; federal agencies use it for investigative purposes.
As the ACLU and other rights groups have consistently criticized in the decades since 2001, federal agencies have used the Patriot Act “domestic terrorism” definition to claim expansive authorities to investigate and surveil people and groups with little or no factual, evidentiary basis, including those engaged in First Amendment-protected protest and other activities. Indeed, the Justice and Homeland Security Departments have for decades created categories of investigative priorities ostensibly focused on “violent extremists” with a variety of what the agencies describe as “ideological agendas”—ranging from “racially and ethnically motivated” to “anti-government/anti-authority” to “potential bias related to religion, gender, or sexual orientation,” and more.
In other words, abusive use of “domestic terrorism” investigative authority is not a new problem, but it is a serious one.
One important, concrete thing we can do for ourselves and our communities is, therefore, to educate people about the variety of scenarios in which they may encounter federal agencies and their rights in those scenarios—particularly if questioned by law enforcement agencies and when exercising the rights to free speech and protest. And if, in fact, an individual or group is actually investigated, invoke the right to a lawyer.
NSPM-7 Instructs Joint Terrorism Task Forces to Conduct Investigations
The memo instructs Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) to conduct investigations. Here, it helps to know what JTTFs are, the rights concerns they’ve long raised, and measures to help mitigate some of these issues.
JTTFs are FBI-operated task forces that are intended to work with state and local law enforcement agencies to conduct counterterrorism investigations. There are about 200 JTTFs throughout the country, including at least one in each of the FBI’s 56 field offices. They operate with little transparency or meaningful oversight and we have long raised serious red flags about their privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties violations.
JTTFs in major cities have monitored Black Lives Matter activists, targeted Muslims, journalists, and environmentalists for investigation, including with intimidating visits to their homes or workplaces and, in May 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr announced that JTTFs would be used in response to racial justice protests. It’s perhaps no surprise that President Trump would again use JTTFs to target real or perceived critics for surveillance and investigation.
The memo tells JTTFs to investigate “potential federal crimes relating to” “recruiting or radicalizing” people for what it describes as “political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights” as well as investigations of funders and their leadership. It widens an already open door to politicized rights-violating enforcement. It also assigns to JTTFs investigation of violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), a law requiring individuals or groups who are defined broadly as acting as “agents” of foreign governments or political entities to register with the government and disclose extensive information about their associations and activities. Government enforcement of FARA, too, has raised constitutional issues virtually since it was passed. FARA’s terms are so broad and vague that they raise concern it could be read to apply to nonprofits, journalists, and others with some “agency” connection to foreign groups or entities. Its registration and disclosure requirements could chill a wide range of speech on issues of public concern. As with the memo’s approach writ large, the government could selectively target speakers for their viewpoints in violation of the First Amendment. Again, it’s important to know your rights if approached, questioned, or investigated by federal law enforcement agents—whether they are part of a JTTF or not.
NSPM-7 Tasks Other Federal Departments and Agencies with Problematic Investigations
NSPM-7 also tasks other departments and agencies with investigations and actions that are already within their purview, and that could raise significant constitutional concerns depending on their implementation. We’ll be watching, for example, to see if NSPM-7’s instruction to the Justice Department to issue guidance on investigation of “politically-motivated” acts and “identification of any behaviors, fact patterns, recurrent motivations, or other indicia common to organizations and entities that coordinate these acts” results in investigations and retaliation for groups and people engaging in First Amendment-protected activities.
The memo also instructs the Treasury Department and IRS to pursue investigations using their existing authorities. It’s worth emphasizing that in a tax code provision aptly titled “Prohibition on Executive Branch Influence over Taxpayer Audits and Investigations,” Congress made it a felony for top officials, including the president, to use the IRS for politically-motivated retaliatory investigation and actions. In any event, anticipating the harm to nonprofits and tax-exempt groups from unwarranted investigations, civil society groups have already issued guidance on compliance and preparation.
How State and Local Governments Can Help Protect Residents from Federal Abuses
States and local governments can also act to protect their residents and the nonprofit and tax-exempt groups in their states: They can end or limit their participation in JTTFs and other similar joint federal, state, and local law enforcement investigative and surveillance partnerships. They can prohibit or limit data-sharing with federal agencies through these partnerships. At a minimum, states and local governments must make agreements governing these partnerships with federal agencies public.
Indeed, police forces in some of the nation’s largest cities, including Atlanta, San Francisco, Oakland, and Portland, have chosen to leave or limit cooperation with JTTFs because of disputes with federal officials over transparency and accountability for abuses. That’s in part because these task forces are structured to deputize state and local law enforcement officers so they act with the authority and immunities of federal agents—sometimes anywhere in the country. Because state and local laws may provide stronger protections for residents’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties than federal law, JTTFs can effectively function to shield state and local officers from accountability for violations of their own states’ laws.
In short, by withdrawing from or limiting participation in JTTFs and other federal-state task forces, state and local governments can both protect residents and ensure their own oversight over their law enforcement agencies.
Why NSPM-7 Cannot Rewrite Our Constitutional Rights
The president cannot rewrite the Constitution by memo or otherwise. No matter what the president says or tries to do through NSPM-7, the First Amendment constrains what federal agencies can do when it comes to punishing groups and people for exercising their rights to free speech, peaceful protest, and supporting causes by making donations. It also safeguards against viewpoint-based government discrimination, coercion, and retaliation.
If any U.S. group or person is investigated or prosecuted, the Constitution guarantees the right to due process—requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge wrongful government conduct. And if, for example, a particular group or organization is targeted based on protected characteristics—race, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity—the right to equal protection under the laws and other rights would apply. Under the 14th Amendment, these due process and equal protection rights also apply to federal and state agencies’ actions against tax-exempt nonprofits.
In short, no president—of any party—should have the power to punish nonprofit organizations and activists simply because he disagrees with them. Sadly, however, the government using intimidation tactics against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties is not new in this country’s history. Extreme as the memo is, it echoes past and ongoing abuses of executive power.
For example, the president’s strategy “to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations” harkens straight back to the Civil Rights Era, when J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI launched a top-secret program “to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” Black leaders, civil rights groups, and protest, particularly when it was Black and student-led. That Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), grew to encompass also-discriminatory and unwarranted investigations of labor unions, and Native American, Latino, and other rights and social justice groups. Eventually, the massively rights-violating law enforcement abuses of the Civil Rights Era resulted in a landmark congressional investigation, called the Church Committee, and an overhaul of national security and intelligence agencies and their authorities that was intended to protect civil liberties and rights.
But in the post-9/11 era, presidents, agencies themselves, and Congress undid many of those post-Civil Rights Era national security and intelligence-agency reforms. And in many ways, the story of the last 20 years is a story of how Black, brown, and Muslim communities and groups bore the brunt of the resulting executive branch abuses. These abuses spread—as government abuses do—to AAPI communities, racial and social justice activists, environmental and animal rights movements, pro-Palestinian groups and activists, and so many others with beliefs the government has deemed unpopular or controversial.
Ultimately, we need another generational overhaul of federal agencies’ law enforcement and intelligence authority, which can only come from Congress, and pressure from all of us to achieve it. Until then, we can arm ourselves with knowledge and a recognition that chilling as NSPM-7 is, and painful and difficult though its implementation may well prove to be, it contains nothing that we have not seen before. Civil society groups and activists have worked hard to survive other similar moments in our history. We must do so again, in solidarity with nonprofit groups and leaders who are or will be unjustly and illegally targeted by the Trump administration. No president can take that away from us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Vindicating Every Warning About the Potential Misuse of War-on-Terror Powers
What we are witnessing is the war on terror in zombie form: devoid of its original life force and human drive, but more dangerous than ever, as it shuffles mindlessly forward in a search for human flesh to no end.
Oct 15, 2025
There is good news and bad news for critics of the United States’ bloated 21st century war machine. The good news: The “war on terror” is dead.
The bad news? It seems to have become a part of the walking dead—a kind of zombie war on terror that is continuing and radically expanding, even as the fears and threats that originally motivated all its excesses are seemingly vanishing from the American psyche.
Consider the following facts: Despite the public release only a few years ago of evidence showing the Saudi government’s direct complicity in the crime of September 11, 2001—the central, instigating act of terrorism that drove and justified every aspect of the “war on terror” that followed—associating with or even taking money from that same government appears to carry no stigma. The Biden administration’s efforts to pledge American lives and treasure to defend that same government elicited relatively little controversy. And this year, dozens of top US comedians, from the left-leaning Bill Burr to the right-leaning Andrew Schulz, happily took its money to help whitewash its image. The Saudi government’s expanding encroachment into US sports and entertainment in general continues only to receive an eager welcome.
Meanwhile, after spending more than a decade fighting the shadowy threat of al-Qaeda, the US government has now seemingly come to terms with the terror group’s ongoing influence in the region. It has enthusiastically gone along with the installation of an al-Qaeda-linked militant, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as the leader of Syria, whose former president Washington spent years trying to remove from power expressly because of his alleged support for terrorism—including the very al-Qaeda its new president hails from.
Trump may be the first president to use this zombie “war” for ends that it was never meant for, but history suggests he will not be the last, unless we make the collective political choice to put a lid on and roll back the radical growth of executive war-making power that has accumulated year after year since 9/11.
Sharaa swiftly had the $10 million US bounty on his head removed, the terrorist designation of the al-Qaeda offshoot he led has been revoked, and just a few weeks ago, he was given a warm welcome during the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where on one stage, former CIA Director David Petraeus acknowledged the two had been on opposite sides of the civil war in Iraq 20 years ago, in between lavishing him with praise and declaring himself a “fan.”
It’s not just al-Qaeda. The Biden administration had explored teaming up with the Taliban to fight ISIS’ branch in Afghanistan, while the Trump administration is now inching toward normalizing relations with the group, which George W. Bush once said was “threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.”
The Taliban’s link to al-Qaeda was once upon a time the rationale for regime change and 20 years of US war in Afghanistan—which, of course, ended with the Taliban coming back into power, which Washington appears to be coming to peace with now.
Together, these stories suggest that both the American public and the Washington national security establishment have moved on from the core motivations that drove the “war on terror” for the better part of two decades. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the government forces behind September 11—none of it matters anymore, apparently.
And yet the “war on terror” is not just still with us, it’s expanding in radical new ways. The Trump administration has now explicitly repurposed the tactics and powers used against terrorism against a new, unrelated target: drug traffickers—launching airstrikes on private Venezuelan boats in international waters on the basis that drug smugglers are terrorists, and that their transportation of drugs constitutes “an armed attack against the United States.” This is despite widespread doubts about the legality of such strikes and concerns about the risks of this terrorist designation.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has also continued and escalated the trend started under the Biden administration of turning the “war on terror” inward. The president is now threatening to deploy the military against what he calls the “enemy from within,” as his administration pushes to treat a variety of domestic critics, dissidents, and opposition groups as terrorist threats over their First Amendment-protected activity, and draws up secret watchlists of supposed domestic terrorists.
This is all a vindication of the many civil libertarians who warned over the past 24 years that the expansive powers claimed by President Bush and then Barack Obama would somewhere down the line be used in new, alarming ways they were never originally intended for, including to intimidate and punish political dissent. What’s absurd is that this is happening at the exact time that the threats that originally justified all of this are simply being forgotten.
What we are witnessing is the war on terror in zombie form: devoid of its original life force and human drive, but more dangerous than ever, as it shuffles mindlessly forward in a search for human flesh to no end.
Trump may be the first president to use this zombie “war” for ends that it was never meant for, but history suggests he will not be the last, unless we make the collective political choice to put a lid on and roll back the radical growth of executive war-making power that has accumulated year after year since 9/11. Until then, this zombie will stagger on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Troops ‘Deliberately Attacking Peaceful Protesters’ in US Cities, Senator Says
"The goal is to generate riots to justify the expansion of authoritarian measures and to strengthen the case for the troop deployments," said Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley.
Oct 06, 2025
A US senator is warning that acts of unprovoked violence against protesters from troops deployed to American cities by President Donald Trump are part of a "deliberate" strategy to provoke backlash and justify further crackdowns on civil liberties.
"Trump's troops are deliberately attacking peaceful protesters to incite violence," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has watched as the city of Portland in his home state has been swarmed by federal police in recent days as part of an effort by the Trump administration to crack down on protests at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers.
"The goal is to generate riots to justify the expansion of authoritarian measures and to strengthen the case for the troop deployments," Merkley continued. "Let me be emphatically clear: There is no 'invasion' or 'rebellion' that justifies the federalization of the National Guard."
"Unlike former deployments in support of citizens' rights like attending school—this is about attacking citizens' right to peacefully protest," he said. "Our republic is in big trouble."
Last week, Trump ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “provide all necessary troops” to Portland, which he described as "war-ravaged" and "under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists." Trump authorized the military to use "full force, if necessary.”
Portland residents and police have found Trump's description of their city laughable. As Portland police official Craig Dobson testified last week, "For the most part, nightly ICE-Facility protests since July 18, 2025, have been limited to fewer than thirty participants. The protests have been largely sedate during this time."
On Saturday, Trump made the similarly fanciful claim that "Portland is burning to the ground" at the hands of "paid insurrectionists," and said he was deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city to patrol the protests.
In a ruling Saturday night, a federal judge agreed that Trump's descriptions of Portland were "untethered to facts," ruling that the protests outside ICE facilities there did not meet the high legal standard for Trump to deploy the National Guard.
As The Oregonian pointed out, his description of Saturday's protests "contrasted sharply with scenes unfolding simultaneously outside the city's ICE facility and ignored decisions by the federal government to promote and, in fact, create images of disorder around the ICE building." The report continued:
At protests on Saturday, it was federal law enforcement agents who escalated tensions in South Portland, according to Portland residents, reporters on the ground and videos on social media.
Hundreds of demonstrators gathered at the ICE facility on Saturday afternoon to protest immigration enforcement and Trump’s planned deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to monitor the Portland protests. They heckled agents, shouted and carried signs.
They also formed a line in front of the building on a public sidewalk, so every time a car left the building’s garage, dozens of federal agents walked out of the building and moved protesters away from the driveway.
But by mid-afternoon, federal agents began using chemical crowd control on the protesters, pointing less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls into the crowd and throwing tear gas canisters.
Merkley highlighted one particularly egregious case in which a 19-year-old protester, identified as Leilani, was shown arguing with a federal police officer in riot gear.
(Video: The Oregonian)
After being ordered to move away from the building to allow a car to exit the garage, The Oregonian reports that "she complied but was hurling curse words and insults at the two officers in front of her when a third agent wearing a gas mask approached her. Within 10 seconds, the officer directed a canister at the 19-year-old’s face and doused her with chemical spray."
Other similar cases were documented at protests over the past month in which federal police have responded with violence to protesters who posed no clear threat.
Another video from Portland Friday night shows federal officers pushing protesters who blocked the building's driveway into an intersection before hitting them with volleys of tear gas, smoke, and pepper balls.
Troy Brynelson, a reporter on the scene from Oregon Public Broadcasting, said: "You can see what almost looked like fireworks, those are flash bangs from federal officers. It wasn't clear what the crowd did to provoke this. OPB reporters didn't observe anything before the officers started using the gas."
(Video: Oregon Public Media)
"You're gassing an entire neighborhood for nothing!" one protester is heard shouting.
In another video from Friday, an agent is shown shooting pepper spray into the air intake vent of an inflatable frog costume worn by a protester, which activist Joe Gallina pointed out was "a major health risk." A video from the next night shows the same frog alongside dozens of other protesters standing across from a line of riot police several yards away. As they heckled police, they were blasted with another round of pepper balls.
These sorts of scenes have played out in other places where Trump has launched militarized crackdowns. Last week, in Chicago, a man on a bicycle was chased by several federal agents after shouting, "Fuck Trump" to them at an intersection.
At protests outside Chicago's Broadview facility last weekend, peaceful protesters and journalists were hit with pepper spray and rubber bullets, while one reporter was briefly taken into custody. Another journalist for Chicago's CBS News affiliate was blasted with a pepper ball as she was driving with the window down outside the facility on Sunday, with no protesters in the area.
On Monday, attorneys representing journalists and protesters who were attacked filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was committing the "illegal and brutal suppression of First Amendment rights."
"Never in modern times has the federal government undermined bedrock constitutional protections on this scale, or usurped states’ police power by directing federal agents to carry out an illegal mission against the people for the government’s own benefit,” the complaint states.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy