Branding opposition as terrorism: Constitutional concerns raised by new US domestic terrorism priorities

A previously underreported directive from the Trump administration signals a major change in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, raising alarms over potential threats to core free speech protections in the Constitution. National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), signed on September 25, 2025, appears to permit proactive law enforcement actions against Americans based not on imminent violence but on political or ideological beliefs.

Presidential memoranda, like NSPM-7, allow the president to guide government agencies and law enforcement with limited congressional oversight. Unlike executive orders, these memoranda may remain unpublished and classified for years. NSPM-7 represents a significant expansion of presidential authority by targeting people and organizations as potential domestic terrorists based on ideology rather than actions.

The memorandum identifies views described as anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, or anti-American as potential indicators of domestic terrorism. It also frames anti-fascist beliefs supporting government overthrow, or expressing extremism regarding migration, race, and gender, as warning signs. NSPM-7 instructs multiagency task forces to investigate potential crimes tied to radicalization and enables the Attorney General to propose domestic groups for terrorist designation, including those engaging in doxing, swatting, rioting, or civil disorder.

Historically, U.S. counterterrorism policy has focused primarily on foreign threats. Previous administrations defined terrorism largely as an international concern, using military, diplomatic, and legal tools abroad. Clinton-era policy recognized domestic security risks alongside foreign threats, especially following major attacks like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The Bush administration expanded counterterrorism under the global war on terror, while Obama emphasized legal oversight and threat-based targeting.

NSPM-7 departs sharply from prior frameworks by focusing on ideology rather than concrete violent acts. First Amendment protections generally prevent punishment for unpopular beliefs and safeguard the right to organize and express dissent. By treating ideological stances as indicators of terrorism, the memorandum potentially infringes on free speech and association rights.

Thirty-one members of Congress raised concerns about NSPM-7, warning that it risks violating constitutional and civil liberties, especially when used to target political dissent or protest. Civil liberties groups argue that criminalizing people based on belief rather than action threatens the fundamental principles of democratic governance. Rather than creating new legal offenses, NSPM-7 redirects investigative resources toward monitoring ideologies, which could suppress dissent through a chilling effect.

Empirical data shows that left-wing domestic violence remains extremely limited compared to right-wing or jihadist attacks, yet NSPM-7 disproportionately focuses on left-leaning ideologies. This approach marks a stark shift from traditional counterterrorism, emphasizing ideological control over evidence-based assessment of threats.

NSPM-7 signals a profound reorientation of U.S. national security toward monitoring and policing belief, raising critical questions about the balance between public safety and constitutional freedoms.

Author: Aiden Foster