The Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence released last week pushed the United States one step closer to a country where the right of freedom of speech and peaceful protest no longer exists.
The Memorandum screams out loud in print about the “common threads” underlying what the White House sees as a network of domestic terrorism: “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity… extremism on migration, race and gender and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” The national security agencies will seek to investigate, prosecute and disrupt organizations and individuals and funders that promote “organized violence.”
While I am not a domestic terrorist nor promote organized violence, I probably do subscribe to several of those views; not only that, I’m joined by a sizable majority of people in this country.
The Memorandum calls on the IRS and Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute nonprofit organizations that the National Joint Terrorism Taskforce may deem instigators of political violence. It is a pretext to silence those who may not agree with Trump’s policies. Churches, temples, mosques, community groups, activists, funders, and environmental law advocates like us may be in their sights.
Breaking a longstanding protocol of noninterference, President Trump personally directed the Department of Justice to investigate Open Society Foundations and their founder, George Soros. OSF and Soros have long been attacked by the right for their courageous work in support of human rights, democracy, and civil liberties. (Our Center was proud to receive their support back in 2010.) George Soros has the means to defend himself in a court of law, but the accusations against the foundation represent grave threats the organizations supported by OSF — those defending immigrant rights, the trans community, criminal justice, pro-Palestinian views, and many others.
It is public knowledge — at least it was before the DOJ removed its own study from its website two weeks ago — that far-right extremists are more likely to commit mass killings than far-left extremists. These figures show 227 events taking 520 lives by far-right ideologues, compared to 24 attacks costing 78 lives by the far left.
These actions — Memorandum NSPM-7, the Open Society Foundations investigation, a domestic terrorist designation of Antifa — have nothing to do with “combating terrorism.” They are an orchestrated campaign by Trump and his lieutenants to intimidate and prosecute political opposition and more broadly suppress independent centers of thought and opinion. Trump has been vindictive in his punishment of law firms, universities, media companies, and U.S. cities. While some of these entities have fought back, many others capitulated to their detriment as this regime cannot be appeased.
Political targeting of civil society actors with a broad terrorism brush is next. Nonprofits are a large and diverse group: food banks, membership organizations like AARP, cause organizations like ACLU, and research and advocacy institutions like our own. Public disparagement, threats against their funding, revoking tax status (which can be done without redress), intimidation, and investigation will be the Trump playbook. It is not an exaggeration to say that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and other constitutional guarantees are literally up for grabs.
Nonprofits may well be different than other entities Trump has bullied. The progressive nonprofit sector is distinguished by its community engagement and service, and there is a decades-long history of working together and mutual support that will be difficult to undo. Nonprofits operate as a pack, and they may not be so easily picked off. Already, the movement successfully pushed back in April against a rumored attempt by the Trump Administration to strip environmental groups of their nonprofit tax status.
The national security memorandum follows a pattern of unprecedented abuses of power by this administration on other issues. First, there is the declaration of a national emergency based on a fictitious or wildly exaggerated event or series of events. Fentanyl crossing the U.S. border from Canada (negligible) or even from Mexico (more significant) was serious but hardly a national economic emergency worthy of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Then, Trump drew on those emergency powers to dictate actions of far-reaching consequences — without the consent of Congress and in violation of constitutional checks and balances. For example, the fentanyl “emergency” became the pretext to impose major new tariffs on 62 countries. And finally, as defenders of democracy sued Trump for those actions and won injunctions in lower courts, the Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to uphold — at least temporarily and with very few exceptions — the unchecked expansion of presidential power in its march toward authoritarianism.
This was the pattern when Trump declared that immigrants were launching an invasion, thus drawing on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and its language of “declared war” to justify mass deportations of hundreds of thousands of people, including U.S. citizens. That the ICE raids targeted law-abiding, tax-paying, and hardworking immigrants, and not those charged with violent crimes as originally claimed, no longer mattered.
That the U.S. now produces more energy than ever did not forestall Trump from declaring a national energy emergency, allowing the administration to fast track permitting of oil and gas projects, open up new public lands for exploration and drilling, resuscitate antiquated coal plants, and clamp down on solar and wind developments.
The abuses of power based on so-called “national emergencies” have extended to other contexts: the militarization of U.S. cities justified by lies about urban crime rates; the identification of Brazil as a national security threat for prosecuting a Trump ally for treason; and sanctions on the International Criminal Court for its indictment of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu.
Now, nonprofits, protest groups, churches, charities, and those of us who want a society where we care for, rather than persecute, other people are targets of the next vendetta and the subject of the next fabricated national emergency.
However, we will not be silent. We will not be afraid. We will stand together. We will defend our rights.
Showing 2,920 results
Minor Sinclair | October 7, 2025
The Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence released last week pushed the United States one step closer to a country where the right of freedom of speech and peaceful protest no longer exists.
Federico Holm, James Goodwin | September 15, 2025
To say that the policy priorities of the Trump administration represent a U-turn from the Biden administration is a severe understatement. The recent release of the long-awaited Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda — the first of the current Trump administration — provides us with our first concrete picture of just how far the regulatory policy pendulum is going to swing. From climate and energy to public health, the current administration is systematically undermining important advancements achieved during the previous cycle.
James Goodwin | September 3, 2025
Public participation is a defining feature of the modern administrative state. One of administrative law’s functions is to ensure meaningful participation by relevant stakeholders. Importantly, as the public’s expectations of and demands for what participation mechanisms are meant to accomplish have evolved, policymakers and the courts have updated administrative law requirements and doctrines.
Catalina Gonzalez, James Goodwin | August 26, 2025
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted four days’ worth of hearings to gather public testimony on its proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and the suite of existing greenhouse gas (GHG standards for cars and trucks that the finding supplies the legal justification for. The vast majority of the participants testified in strong opposition to the proposal, and included a broad cross-section of our society: faith leaders; a high school student; community organizers; and concerned grandparents.
Daniel Farber | August 21, 2025
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
James Goodwin | August 12, 2025
For conservatives and many political centrists, there was a clear villain to blame for congressional dysfunction: Chevron deference. Repealing this legal doctrine — which generally called on federal courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions they are charged with implementing — would inaugurate a new Golden Age of Article I primacy and productivity, they claimed.
Daniel Farber | July 29, 2025
If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? If a law hasn’t been formally repealed but can be violated with complete impunity, is it still in effect? I’ll leave the first question to philosophers, but the second one could have major legal implications. Here’s why.
Daniel Farber | July 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is on a rampage. He has big plans for a mass repeal of existing regulations, he’s trying to use emergency declarations to short-circuit normal environmental protections, and he’s savaging environmental agencies. He’s also at war with the rule of law, dodging court orders, ignoring statutes, and punishing lawyers and law firms that have dared to challenge him. In area after area, Trump has tried to sweep aside legal constraints. Part of the point of Trump’s “shock and awe” campaign has been to overwhelm the ability of opponents and the courts to keep up with his legally questionable actions. Trump’s attack on the bureaucracy is also an attack on the rule of law because one of the key functions of bureaucrats is to ensure that the government follows the rules.
Federico Holm, James Goodwin | July 14, 2025
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) provides Congress with an expedited procedure to review and potentially overturn final rules issued by federal agencies. Despite being touted as an avenue for congressional oversight, the CRA is often deployed as a partisan tool that replaces agency expertise and democratic consideration with political maneuvers and slim voting majorities. Without meaningful debate, public participation, or scientific input, anti-regulatory members of Congress can undo years of exhaustive scientific and legal research and multiple rounds of public input in the span of a few months. In our new analysis building off our CRA By the Numbers 2025 tracker, we take stock of the use of the CRA in the current Congress, to understand how it fails as a legislative oversight tool and how it undermines democracy and agency expertise.