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
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
Most Popular