President Issues NSPM-7 to Combat Domestic Terrorism
On September 25th, President Trump released the National Security President’s Memorandum 7, known as NSPM-7. This significant directive lays out a “governmental strategy” focused on tackling domestic terrorism.
While much of the media spotlight seems to be on new categorizations for groups like Antifa, the real story is NSPM-7. It’s a pivotal moment, and it feels like the left has only started to understand its potential impact. This could define a long-term political struggle.
Identifying the Adversary
For years, presidential orders have hinted at the challenges posed by unique domestic threats, but often in vague terms. NSPM-7 explicitly calls out what it terms “anti-fascist lies.” It shifts the narrative, painting core American values like border security and backing law enforcement as “fascist,” thus legitimizing violent revolutions in the eyes of some.
This memorandum represents a significant departure from previous protocols. It names threats directly, mandates financial tracing, and removes the leeway that the Department of Justice previously had.
Some groups are described as organizing rallies that incite terror nationwide. NSPM-7 articulates the underlying ideologies driving such violence: anti-American sentiments, hostility towards capitalism and Christianity, issues surrounding migration, and extreme views on race and gender.
For too long, political correctness has stifled open discussions. NSPM-7 takes a sledgehammer to that barrier.
The order also brings to mind Trump’s 2016 proclamation about naming the “radical Islamic threat,” which was often avoided by figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As he pointed out in discussions with Clinton, identifying the problem is essential to solving it.
Financial Accountability
The directive extends beyond merely defining threats; it instructs the relevant agencies to take action.
One ambitious aspect is that the Treasury Department is tasked with disrupting financial networks that underwrite terrorism and domestic political violence. This includes monitoring illicit funding streams and working with other agencies to choke off their resources.
The IRS is instructed to ensure that tax-exempt organizations aren’t unintentionally or directly funding political violence, referring any offending entities and their leaders to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Historically, Americans have suspected massive funding by leftist groups, often masked by broader narratives. The NSPM-7 creates a framework to validate such concerns. It establishes a consistent “follow the money” strategy, something only governmental agencies can effectively execute. Had this approach been in place before the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the resulting damages could have amounted to millions instead of billions.
Unyielding Approach
This order also reinvigorates the Joint Terrorism Task Force, prioritizing domestic terrorism on a national level. Yet, the most crucial shift might be at the expense of the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General has been directed to prosecute all federal crimes related to domestic terrorism “to the fullest extent of the law.” This language is key; it doesn’t leave room for judgment or discretion. If it’s possible to pursue, it must be done, aiming for maximum accountability.
This directive directly addresses the DOJ’s recent history of selective enforcement. It recalls instances like the Eastern District of Virginia’s delay in pursuing James Comey until pressuring from a new US attorney prompted action. NSPM-7 is designed to guard against such bureaucratic resistance in the future.
What’s Next
Soon, we’ll see how this unfolds. Attorney General Pam Bondi faces a significant task ahead. There’s little room for leniency regarding “unauthorized protests” or violent actions against law enforcement that escalate into riots. NSPM-7 strips away past excuses.
In essence, NSPM-7 marks a crucial break from previous methods. It names the threats, instructs the government to follow financial leads, and eliminates the Department of Justice’s previous flexibility.
This poses risks for the left, as it could expose the networks that fund and shelter them. Conversely, conservatives might find this to be a monumental opportunity.
Trump’s strategy appears to frame domestic terrorism as a war—not just a nuisance to be managed. Now the challenge is ensuring this directive is enforced.
