A legal analysis of executive power, security, and civil liberties in domestic terrorism policy
Donald Trump’s Presidential directive dated 25th September 2025 on countering domestic terrorism and organized political violence reflects a sweeping assertion of executive power to address a genuine and increasingly complex threat to public safety and constitutional order. It begins with an appeal to presidential authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States and proceeds to frame political violence not as sporadic, isolated incidents, but as the product of organized campaigns of intimidation, radicalization, and disruption. The memorandum situates recent assassinations, assassination attempts, riots, and attacks on federal officers within a broader context of coordinated anti-state activity, and it portrays this activity as ideologically motivated, often under the umbrella of so-called anti-fascism. The document insists that such movements are not spontaneous but deliberate strategies to undermine democratic society, justify targeted killings, and obstruct lawful governance.
The proposed remedy is an expansive law enforcement strategy led by the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) with broad interagency coordination. This strategy emphasizes the investigation and prosecution of not only direct perpetrators but also funders, facilitators, and organizations that allegedly sustain the infrastructure of political violence. It contemplates using financial intelligence tools, IRS oversight of tax-exempt entities, and investigative powers across federal agencies to dismantle networks comprehensively. It also envisages designating certain entities as domestic terrorist organizations under 18 U.S.C. 2331(5), a step that would have significant legal consequences, including heightened prosecutorial leverage and potentially chilling effects on political expression.
From a legal perspective, the memorandum’s strength lies in its reliance on existing federal statutes that already criminalize violence against federal officers, conspiracy against rights, solicitation of violence, money laundering, terrorism financing, arson, racketeering, and fraud. The directive largely situates itself within the statutory framework provided by Congress, thereby grounding its enforcement measures in pre-existing law rather than attempting to create new offenses by executive fiat. Moreover, by emphasizing interagency cooperation and financial disruption, it mirrors strategies historically used against organized crime and transnational terrorism, thereby leveraging tested models of enforcement.
Nonetheless, the directive raises critical constitutional and civil liberties concerns. First, its framing of political violence as being ideologically tied to movements such as anti-fascism risks collapsing the distinction between protected political expression and unlawful violent activity. Under the First Amendment, advocacy of political ideas — even radical or offensive ones — is constitutionally protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). By conflating “anti-fascist” ideology broadly with terrorism, the memorandum could sweep protected association and speech within the ambit of terrorism investigations, thereby chilling dissent and infringing on constitutional rights.
Second, the directive contemplates robust interagency surveillance and financial investigations of individuals and organizations, including NGOs and citizens with foreign ties. While tools like the Foreign Agents Registration Act and money laundering statutes provide legitimate investigative bases, their application in politically charged contexts risks selective or discriminatory enforcement. Particularly controversial would be the IRS’s involvement in scrutinizing tax-exempt organizations, which has historically triggered debates over viewpoint discrimination and political targeting.
Third, the proposed designation of domestic terrorist organizations raises unresolved legal questions. Unlike foreign terrorist organizations, which can be designated by the Secretary of State under clear statutory authority, there is no formal domestic designation regime authorized by Congress. Attempting to designate domestic groups risks running afoul of constitutional protections for association and due process, since members may be penalized for affiliation without adequate procedural safeguards.
Fourth, the emphasis on “preemptive” disruption of networks before violent acts occur raises the specter of preventive prosecution and surveillance, which, while valuable for national security, must be reconciled with due process protections and the prohibition on guilt by association. Courts have traditionally scrutinized broad conspiracy theories or material support charges when they blur the line between expressive conduct and active participation in criminal schemes.
In evaluating the memorandum, one must recognize the undeniable need for a comprehensive strategy against domestic terrorism, especially in an era of increasing political polarization and targeted violence. The reliance on established criminal statutes and interagency models is a pragmatic strength, and the recognition of financial and organizational infrastructures behind violence demonstrates an appreciation for the systemic nature of modern extremist threats. However, the directive also illustrates the persistent tension between national security and constitutional liberty. Its expansive scope, particularly its ideological framing and contemplated designations, risks granting the executive branch a dangerously broad mandate to treat dissenting movements as terrorism.
The legal and policy challenge, therefore, lies not in rejecting the memorandum’s objectives but in ensuring that its implementation is narrowly tailored, subject to oversight, and consistent with constitutional guarantees. Congress, the judiciary, and independent oversight bodies must remain vigilant to prevent the expansion of counterterrorism tools into instruments of political suppression. Only through such balance can the United States both preserve security against organized political violence and uphold the very democratic principles such violence seeks to destroy.
Text of the Presidential Memoranda
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Presidential Memoranda
September 25, 2025
SUBJECT: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:
Section 1. Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence. Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years. Even in the aftermath of the horrifying assassination of Charlie Kirk, some individuals who adhered to the alleged shooter’s ideology embraced and cheered this evil murder while actively encouraging more political violence. This was preceded by the 2024 assassination of a senior healthcare executive and the 2022 assassination attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Two separate assassination attempts against my own life in less than 3 months took place during the 2024 Presidential election cycle. Riots in Los Angeles and Portland reflect a more than 1,000 percent increase in attacks on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers since January 21, 2025, compared to the same period last year. Just yesterday, a shooting targeting an ICE facility in Dallas resulted in multiple casualties. Separate anti-police and “criminal justice” riots have left many people dead and injured and inflicted over $2 billion in property damage nationwide.
This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.
These campaigns often begin by isolating and dehumanizing specific targets to justify murder or other violent action against them. They do so through a variety of fora, including anonymous chat forums, in-person meetings, social media, and even educational institutions. These campaigns then escalate to organized doxing, where the private or identifying information of their targets (such as home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information) is exposed to the public with the explicit intent of encouraging others to harass, intimidate, or violently assault them. As in the case of several ICE agents in Los Angeles being doxed, the goal of these campaigns can be to obstruct the operations of the Federal Government as well as aid and abet criminal activity the Federal Government is lawfully pursuing. These campaigns are coordinated and perpetrated by actors who have developed a comprehensive strategy to achieve specific policy goals through radicalization and violent intimidation.
There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations. For example, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin engraved the bullets used in the murder with so-called “anti-fascist” rhetoric.
The United States requires 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. Through this comprehensive strategy, law enforcement will disband and uproot networks, entities, and organizations that promote organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society.
Sec. 2. Investigating Domestic Terrorist Organizations. (a) The National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices (collectively, “JTTFs”) shall coordinate and supervise a comprehensive national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and disrupt entities and individuals engaged in acts of political violence and intimidation designed to suppress lawful political activity or obstruct the rule of law. This strategy shall include the investigatory and prosecutorial measures set forth in this section.
(b) The JTTFs shall investigate potential Federal crimes relating to acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons for the purpose of:
(i) political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights; or
(ii) the violent deprivation of any citizen’s rights.
(c) The JTTFs shall also investigate:
(i) institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in the criminal conduct described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section; and
(ii) non-governmental organizations and American citizens residing abroad or with close ties to foreign governments, agents, citizens, foundations, or influence networks engaged in violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.) or money laundering by funding, creating, or supporting entities that engage in activities that support or encourage domestic terrorism.
(d) The JTTFs shall consult and coordinate with executive departments and agencies (agencies) as needed to determine whether such agencies can apply existing authorities or exercise their own authorities, as appropriate, to support the JTTFs’ investigations and relevant prosecutions of political violence.
(e) The JTTFs may, to the extent permitted by law, request operational assistance from and coordinate with law enforcement partners when investigating domestic terrorism.
(f) The National Joint Terrorism Task Force shall provide regular progress updates to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.
(g) The Attorney General shall direct the Department of Justice to prosecute all Federal crimes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, related to the investigations described in subsections (a) through (c) of this section.
(h) The Attorney General shall issue specific guidance that ensures domestic terrorism priorities include politically motivated terrorist acts such as organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder. This guidance shall also include an identification of any behaviors, fact patterns, recurrent motivations, or other indicia common to organizations and entities that coordinate these acts in order to direct efforts to identify and prevent potential violent activity.
(i) The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), in coordination with the Attorney General, shall make available all resources, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to identify and disrupt financial networks that fund domestic terrorism and political violence. The Secretary, acting through the Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Office of the Department of the Treasury, shall deploy investigative tools, examine financial flows, and coordinate with partner agencies to trace illicit funding streams. The Secretary shall provide guidance for financial institutions to file Suspicious Activity Reports and investigate indicia of illicit funding streams to ensure such activity is rooted out at the source and referred for law enforcement action, as appropriate.
(j) The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) shall take action to ensure that no tax-exempt entities are directly or indirectly financing political violence or domestic terrorism. In addition, where applicable, the Commissioner shall ensure that the Internal Revenue Service refers such organizations, and the employees and officers of such organizations, to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.
(k) All Federal law enforcement agencies with investigative authority shall question and interrogate, within all lawful authorities, individuals engaged in political violence or lawlessness regarding the entity or individual organizing such actions and any related financial sponsorship of those actions prior to adjudication or initiation of a plea agreement. Investigations should prioritize crimes such as the following: assaulting Federal officers or employees or otherwise engaging in conduct proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 111; conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. 241; conspiracy to commit offense under 18 U.S.C. 371; solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 373; money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956; funding of terrorist acts or otherwise facilitating terrorism under 18 U.S.C. 2339, 2339A, 2339B, 2339C, and 2339D; arson offenses under 18 U.S.C. 844; violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.); and major fraud against the United States under 18 U.S.C. 1031.
(l) All Federal law enforcement agencies with investigative authority shall adopt strategies similar to those used to address violent crime and organized crime to disrupt and dismantle entire networks of criminal activity.
Sec. 3. Department of Justice Designation. In the course of and as a result of the investigations directed by section 2 of this memorandum, the Attorney General may recommend that any group or entity whose members are engaged in activities meeting the definition of “domestic terrorism” in 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) merits designation as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The Attorney General shall submit a list of any such groups or entities to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.
Sec. 4. Domestic Terrorism as a National Priority Area. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall designate domestic terrorism a national priority area and develop appropriate grant programs to allocate funding for law enforcement partners to detect, prevent, and protect against threats arising from this area.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
