A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a significant shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, raising alarms over potential threats to free speech rights protected by the Bill of Rights. The directive, known as National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, was issued on September 25, 2025, and for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based on their political or ideological beliefs, rather than any planned acts of violence.
This development follows a series of executive actions by President Donald Trump, who has utilized various forms of executive authority, including executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations, to direct national security policy with minimal congressional oversight. As an international relations scholar, I recognize that this seventh national security memorandum from the Trump White House pushes the limits of presidential authority by targeting individuals and groups as potential domestic terrorists based on their beliefs rather than their actions.
Presidential National Security Powers
Executive memoranda, such as NSPM-7, provide a mechanism for the president to instruct government officials and agencies by delegating tasks and directing agency actions. These memoranda can order departments to prepare reports, implement new policies, coordinate interagency efforts, or review existing programs to align with the administration’s priorities. Unlike executive orders, they are not required to be published, and many remain classified for years.
The stated purpose of NSPM-7 is to counter domestic terrorism and organized political violence, with a focus on perceived threats from the political left. The memorandum identifies “anti-Christian,” “anti-capitalism,” or “anti-American” views as potential indicators of domestic terrorism. It claims that political violence originates with “anti-fascist” groups holding views such as “support for the overthrow of the United States Government” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
‘Domestic Terrorist Organizations’
The memorandum directs the Department of Justice to focus the resources of the FBI’s approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces on investigating acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons for political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights. It also empowers the attorney general to propose groups for designation as “domestic terrorist organizations,” including those engaging in organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder.
Existing laws allow the secretary of state to designate groups as “foreign terrorist organizations” subject to financial sanctions, but these laws do not permit the president to label domestic groups in the same way.
Defining Terrorism
NSPM-7 marks a major conceptual shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, focusing on domestic terrorism in a departure from historical approaches that primarily targeted foreign threats. Earlier presidential directives largely defined terrorism as a foreign threat to be countered through military power, diplomacy, and international cooperation.
Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. government has treated terrorism as a global menace to democratic institutions. The Clinton administration reframed terrorism as both a foreign policy and domestic security challenge, particularly after high-profile attacks like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration fused counterterrorism with national defense, expanding the concept of threats to include countries harboring or aiding terrorist organizations.
The Obama administration sought to narrow and regulate those powers by embedding counterterrorism within a system of legal rules and procedures. The key question was whether targeted individuals posed a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, focusing on tactical considerations rather than ideology.
“The lethal drone strike on al-Qaida propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 was justified on the basis that he was actively involved in plotting attacks and remained unreachable for capture.”
During the first Trump presidency, executive orders were used to change counterterrorism policy, most notably through several iterations of a “travel ban” restricting immigration from countries like Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. The Biden administration redirected attention toward preventing catastrophic threats, especially from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-state actors.
First Amendment Rights at Risk
There is no single official definition of terrorism in U.S. law, with various definitions used based on the purpose of the law, whether criminal, intelligence collection, or civil liability. Definitions typically focus on violent or dangerous acts intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy. However, NSPM-7 reorients national security machinery toward policing belief, potentially jeopardizing First Amendment rights.
The directive’s emphasis on ideological orientations as indicators of domestic terrorism has prompted thirty-one members of Congress to express “serious concerns” about NSPM-7, warning that it poses “serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks.” According to the ACLU, any definition of terrorism that includes ideological components risks criminalizing people or groups based on belief rather than violence or other criminal conduct.
“Congress has declined to create a domestic complement to the foreign terrorist designation largely due to the potential for impinging on First Amendment–protected association and speech.”
Silencing Dissent
NSPM-7 does not authorize new actions within the legal and institutional framework for counterterrorism, nor does it criminalize previously legal conduct. Instead, it shifts the investigative focus to the identity and ideology of supposed perpetrators, potentially silencing anti-fascist and other messages opposing the Trump administration.
Law professor Steve Vladeck describes this chilling effect as “obeying in advance,” where organizations self-censor to avoid investigation or prosecution. Although left-wing violence has increased over the past decade, empirical evidence shows it remains at low absolute levels compared to historical right-wing or jihadist violence. Most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, with right-wing attacks accounting for the majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.
Yet, NSPM-7 disproportionately focuses on left-wing ideologies, departing from prior U.S. counterterrorism frameworks by prioritizing the suppression of ideologically motivated dissent, even without concrete evidence of violent intent.
