Nana Wu
A recently implemented national security directive, largely unexamined by the public, has become the foundational legal instrument for a growing wave of terrorism prosecutions targeting left-wing activists in the United States. This domestic campaign has now expanded onto the international stage, a strategic move that U.S. officials had reportedly been formulating for several months. The initiative culminated on July 16, 2026, with the convening of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism in Washington D.C. The high-profile gathering drew representatives from over 65 nations, informally dubbed the "Antifa summit," signaling a coordinated global effort to address what the administration labels as "radical left terrorism."
Secretary Rubio, during the summit, asserted that antifa-aligned networks operate with shared infrastructure across international borders. He further alleged, without presenting corroborating evidence, that Iran and Cuba have provided financial backing to the movement. In response, the White House proclaimed the summit as the launch of an "unprecedented global offensive" aimed at dismantling what it perceives as radical left terrorism. This offensive, the article contends, is intrinsically linked to the domestic legal framework that has already led to lengthy prison sentences for American activists.
The cornerstone of this legal architecture is National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), issued on September 25, 2025. For the first time in U.S. policy, this directive appears to grant authorization for preemptive law enforcement actions against American citizens based not on their involvement in or planning of violent acts, but on their political or ideological affiliations. Nearly a year after its issuance, the blueprint outlined in NSPM-7 has transitioned from theoretical policy to active implementation.
The U.S. Department of Justice has responded by establishing dedicated task forces staffed with counterterrorism prosecutors. Concurrently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has created its own NSPM-7 mission center to oversee investigations into left-wing movements. This center includes a joint initiative with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) aimed at scrutinizing nonprofit organizations suspected of financial ties to these groups. The Department of Justice has reportedly leveraged this expanded infrastructure to secure convictions and impose lengthy prison sentences on activists.
NSPM-7 was not enacted through congressional legislation. Instead, it represents a significant exercise of executive power through a presidential memorandum, a less publicly scrutinized tool compared to executive orders. As an international relations scholar specializing in U.S. foreign policy decision-making and national security legislation, I recognize that presidents possess several avenues for executive action that bypass the legislative process. These include executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations. While these instruments allow presidents to direct the operations of law enforcement and national security agencies, they offer limited opportunities for congressional oversight.
Presidential National Security Powers and NSPM-7
Executive memoranda serve as directives for agencies to undertake specific tasks, such as preparing reports, implementing policies, or aligning programs with an administration’s strategic priorities. Unlike executive orders, they are not always required to be published in the Federal Register. When these directives pertain to national security matters, as is the case with NSPM-7, they are often referred to as national security directives. Many of these directives remain classified, with declassification potentially deferred for years or even decades, further obscuring their operational scope and impact.
The stated objective of NSPM-7 is to combat domestic terrorism and organized political violence, with a particular emphasis on perceived threats emanating from the political left. The memorandum identifies "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalism," or "anti-American" viewpoints as potential indicators of an individual or group’s propensity to engage in domestic terrorism. It posits that "anti-fascist" groups, characterized by their support for the overthrow of the U.S. government, extremist stances on migration, race, and gender, and hostility towards traditional American values concerning family, religion, and morality, are the originators of political violence.
The strategy articulated in NSPM-7 includes preemptive measures designed to disrupt groups before they can commit violent political acts. It empowers multi-agency task forces to investigate potential federal crimes associated with radicalization and the funding of these groups. A significant development was former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s implementation memorandum, issued in December 2025, which mandated a five-year review of agency files pertaining to antifa. A specialized task force, comprised of counterterrorism and organized crime prosecutors, has been tasked with executing these investigations.
Designating "Domestic Terrorist Organizations" and the Legal Framework
NSPM-7 directs the Department of Justice to reallocate FBI resources from approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on investigating "acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons" for the purpose of engaging in "political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights; and the violent deprivation of any citizen’s rights." Furthermore, the memorandum empowers the Attorney General to propose groups for designation as "domestic terrorist organizations." This designation can encompass groups involved in "organized doxxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder."
Existing federal law permits the Secretary of State to designate foreign groups as "foreign terrorist organizations," which then subjects them to financial sanctions and other punitive measures. However, U.S. law does not provide a mechanism for the president to formally label domestic groups in a similar fashion. This legislative gap has not deterred prosecutions, with law enforcement agencies increasingly relying on existing statutes.
The consequences of this approach are evident in recent cases. In Texas, eight individuals associated with a "North Texas Antifa Cell" received sentences in June 2026 for an armed confrontation at the Prairieland immigration detention center in 2025. One defendant was sentenced to 100 years in prison, while others, despite not firing weapons, received decades-long sentences under terrorism sentencing guidelines. Similarly, in Minnesota, 15 members and associates of a group named Direct Action Minnesota were indicted in June 2026 on conspiracy and assault charges. A comprehensive 94-page indictment cited activities as seemingly minor as wearing an "I’m Antifa!" sweatshirt, possessing a bullhorn, or including a devil emoji in a private communication.
A Shift in Counterterrorism Strategy: From Global to Ideological
NSPM-7 represents a significant conceptual departure in U.S. counterterrorism policy, shifting the focus from primarily external threats to domestic ideological opposition. Previous counterterrorism directives, dating back to the Reagan administration, historically framed terrorism as a global menace addressed through military power and diplomatic engagement. The 1990s saw a reframing of terrorism as a domestic challenge following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The post-9/11 era, under the Bush administration, integrated counterterrorism efforts with national defense in the context of the "global war on terrorism." The Obama administration later sought to refine these powers, emphasizing whether targeted individuals "pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons," a standard focused on actionable threats and feasibility of apprehension rather than ideological underpinnings.
The first Trump administration implemented a travel ban targeting several "terror-prone" countries, while the Biden administration redirected focus toward the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Notably, the designation of "domestic terrorist" has rarely translated into specific criminal charges. While the State Department has designated four antifa-aligned groups as foreign terrorist organizations, the decentralized nature of antifa, lacking formal membership or structure, renders such designations legally complex. Crucially, U.S. law lacks a formal category for domestic terrorist organizations, and creating one could potentially infringe upon First Amendment protections for speech and association. Domestic terrorism itself is not a standalone chargeable offense. Consequently, prosecutors have increasingly utilized broader statutes, such as material support for terrorism and conspiracy laws, which were originally designed for different contexts, to prosecute individuals involved in protest movements.
First Amendment Rights Under Scrutiny
The absence of a single, unified definition of terrorism in U.S. law contributes to the complexity of these issues. Definitions vary depending on the context, whether it be criminal law, intelligence gathering, or civil liability. Generally, these definitions center on identifying violent or dangerous acts undertaken with the intent to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy. However, NSPM-7 appears to transcend the redefinition of terrorism by reorienting national security apparatuses towards the policing of belief systems.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits the government from penalizing individuals for holding unpopular opinions. It also safeguards the freedom of association, enabling individuals to unite for the advancement of public and private ideas, whether political, economic, religious, or cultural. The directive’s emphasis on ideological orientations such as "anti-Christianity," "anti-capitalism," and "anti-American" views as indicators of domestic terrorism raises significant concerns regarding potential infringements on First Amendment rights.
In October 2025, thirty-one members of Congress formally expressed "serious concerns" in a letter to President Trump regarding NSPM-7. They warned of "serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech." Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have cautioned that any definition of terrorism incorporating ideological components risks criminalizing individuals or groups based on their beliefs rather than their actions involving violence or other criminal conduct. Congress has historically refrained from establishing a domestic counterpart to the foreign terrorist designation, largely to avoid impinging upon constitutionally protected speech and association. The fear is that the intent behind such directives might be to create a chilling effect on dissent.
Silencing Dissent and the Disproportionate Focus
NSPM-7 does not criminalize conduct that was previously legal. Instead, it signals the Trump administration’s intention to prioritize investigations based on the identity and ideology of perceived perpetrators. This strategic focus on a broad spectrum of ideologies serves to foster an environment of apprehension, potentially silencing anti-fascist and other messages that oppose the current administration. Law professor Steve Vladeck describes this effect as "obeying in advance," where organizations self-censor to avoid the risk of investigation, prosecution, or the burden of defending against a "domestic terrorist" label. Federal judges in the Prairieland case, for instance, exhibited little leniency, with one judge characterizing the protest itself as "an assault on democracy," even for defendants who had no direct involvement in physical altercations.
While there has been an observable rise in left-wing violence over the past decade, empirical data indicates that it remains significantly lower than historical levels of right-wing or jihadist violence. The majority of domestic terrorists in the United States are politically aligned with the right, responsible for the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorism fatalities. Despite this statistical reality, NSPM-7 directs disproportionate attention and resources toward left-wing ideologies. This represents a departure from previous U.S. counterterrorism frameworks, which prioritized the suppression of ideologically motivated dissent. This is particularly noteworthy in cases such as the one in Minnesota, where judges have already dismissed approximately half of similar federal cases due to insufficient evidence. The broader implications of this policy shift suggest a potential erosion of civil liberties and a chilling effect on political discourse, particularly for dissenting voices.
Joko Widodo
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Lina Irawan
Yuyun Lusiyani
Eva Lovia