Donald Trump has done it. He has essentially criminalized free speech, with the help of his constitutionally challenged Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her subservient throngs of aspiring monarchists. Dropping yet another presidential memo (like a rabid dog drops “chocolate”); Trump has obscenely reduced the Constitution to excrement loaded toilet paper.
This latest obscenity is the benignly titled NSPM-7, also known as the National Presidential Security Memorandum 7. The memo creates the legal fiction of “speech and thought crimes” which will be summarily prosecuted as alleged domestic terrorism. As asinine as this sounds, the present collection of politicized sycophants such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Homeland Security Chief Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others sat in the Oval Office a few months ago as Trump pronounced this premeditated attack on the 1st amendment.
While laying blame solely on Donald Trump would grant some deviant satisfaction, the assertion would prove unfairly inaccurate. Trump could not get away with this crime against the 1st amendment without a host of professional enablers from the legal profession. Conveniently enough for republican attorneys and office holders, the identity of the author or authors of NSPM-7 remain unknown. Trump is the sole signatory. So what are the provisions of this national security document?
NSPM-7 provisions
NSPM-7 is a national security presidential memo that delineates a blueprint which grants unconstitutional power to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. These cabinet officers now have the power to accuse, pursue, arrest, prosecute and incarcerate those charged with little more than speech or thought crimes. The memo is published as the White House action titled Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence. The long name for this memo is The Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence Presidential Memorandum. NSPM-7 makes multiple spurious accusations while providing zero documentation to justify this power grab. In fact, the text would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
The NSPM-7 is divided into the following four sections:
“Section 1. Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence”
“Section 2. Investigating Domestic Terrorist Organizations”
“Section 3. Department of Justice Designation”
“Section 4. Domestic Terrorism as a National Priority Area”
Recent history of NSPM-7
Now this memorandum came out just three days after Trump’s executive order designating “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization.” That order is published as the White House action titled Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization. The legality of this memorandum is sketchy at best. Unlike a previous companion executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, NSPM-7 is overly broad. In theory, criticizing Trump’s obvious combover could be grounds for prosecution. It’s too bad that there is no such group as Antifa. Antifa is slang for the term anti-fascist, and is a concept not a group, but MAGA doesn’t seem to bother with pesky things like facts. So, what did Trump’s enablers write to justify the designation of domestic terrorist organization to a group that doesn’t exist, and why? Furthermore, how does this designation set up a framework for the future criminalization of speech, thought, and general peaceful dissent?
Part of the answer can be directly quoted from that executive order citing Antifa as a terrorist group. To quote:
“Antifa is a militarist, anarchist, enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.”
Forget the fact that this statement is an outright lie; whoever wrote this piece of litigious tripe forgot to include any substantive documentation or references that would substantiate this libelous accusation. How can a non-existent group commit these alleged crimes? What documentation has been provided to the public that justifies this attack on protected 1st Amendment activities? Which persons contributed to this document that attempts to justify the creation of a presidential enemies list? As Americans, we have a right to know the names and positions of those who aided and abetted with this unconstitutional attack on the 1st amendment.
NSPM-7 gleaned accusations from a one-page summary written by two Congressional Research Service employees
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) compiled a short summary of Antifa and their alleged history in the CRS product IF10839. This document lists two contributors, the main author being Lisa N. Sacco and a secondary contributor, CRS Specialist Jerome P. Bjelopera. Separate biographical and publication references cited in your draft include a speaker page for Bjelopera at cvesymposium.com and a profile page at Semantic Scholar.
To add further insult to injury, Bjelopera also served as an investigator to the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol (Oct. 2021 – Jan. 2023), as listed at LegiStorm. In spite of these impressive credentials, Bjelopera added his name to this misleading document lacking any meaningful context, and now the statements from this same single page trope are repeated (nearly verbatim) in NSPM-7.
The alleged crimes listed on this one pager don’t amount to crimes. They’re protected 1st amendment activities. Concern over terrorism has now crossed the line into supporting authoritarian accusations historically used to shut down a democratic society. Academics such as Bjelopera should be clear that their recommendations should not be taken out of context. Citing violence by the left-wing against white supremacists and neo Nazis, while ignoring the violence coming from the far right does nothing to ensure safety or justice. This brief summary cited a single incidence of left-wing inspired violence, dating back to 2012, from a group known as the Anti-Racist Action (ARA), writing that:
“Anti-Racist Action (ARA; an antiracist group now known as The Torch Network or Torch Antifa) attacked a meeting of the Illinois European Heritage Association, consisting of white supremacists from the National Socialist Movement and people from other groups. Brandishing items such as hammers, baseball bats, and police batons, the attackers entered a Chicago-area restaurant and assaulted meeting attendees.”
Did Sacco or Bjelopera cite any news source regarding this incident? No. Did they include the fact that the attack was perpetrated by 5 individuals and not an armed mob? No. Your draft cites a link by Marilyn Elias at the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding this incident: Anti-racists charged in attack on white nationalists. While this was a felonious assault, it certainly wasn’t at the level of a violent, rabid mob hunting down conservatives. For Sacco and Bjelopera to omit any documentation represents a serious instance of professional and academic malfeasance.
Lisa Sacco – Policy Analyst
Lisa Sacco is listed as the lead author of this pseudo-academic tripe. The one page document sets the stage to equate those with antifa sentiments with that of the KKK and the Nazis of the Third Reich. To quote:
“Antifa members view themselves as part of a protest tradition that arcs back to opposition groups in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy prior to World War II. U.S. antifa activism traces its roots back to antiracists who mobilized in the 1980s while opposing the activities of racist skinheads, members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and neo-Nazis. Founded in 2007, The Rose City Antifa in Portland, OR, is the oldest U.S. group to use “antifa” in its moniker. Antifa groups in the United States gained prominence following violent clashes between white supremacists and their opponents, including antifa supporters, in Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2017.”
In all fairness, there is a group that named themselves the Rose City Antifa, with a site at rosecityantifa.org. This is the only group so named that I have heard of, and citing a single group as the face of an alleged national terrorism network seems inaccurate and libelous, especially when the current NSPM-7 loosely defined antifa by a philosophy and not by tangible criminal actions. The one-pager authored by Sacco and Bjelopera added the following vague accusations:
“Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching. As a core purpose, antifa groups track and react to the activities of individuals or groups they see as advocating fascist views, such as neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, white supremacists, and white nationalists. While few concrete antifa principles exist across all groups, U.S. supporters have articulated four shared “obligations.” According to some adherents, antifa groups must (1) track the activity of fascist groups, (2) oppose their public organizing, (3) support antifascist allies attacked by fascists or arrested by police, and (4) not cooperate with law enforcement.”
Exactly who is included in the phrase some members? How do analysts and DOJ attorneys clarify those who are merely willing to commit crimes as opposed to those individuals who actually commit crimes? Furthermore, exactly when did activities such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching become criminal acts? This summary created by the Congressional Research Service is exponentially asinine. And yet, this summary formed the semantic skeleton for NSPM-7, a memorandum that sets the stage for official speech and thought crimes.
The NSPM-7 goes further by citing various criminal offenses the DOJ is preparing to charge. To quote from section K of the document (published at the White House page Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence):
“(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.”
While I acknowledge that assaulting anyone is a crime, why does the earlier executive order or the presidential memo single out the political left? Why is either document written in such impossibly vague terms? How has Attorney General Bondi responded to NSPM-7?
3 Months Later: Attorney General Bondi targets protected 1st amendment activity
Journalist Ken Klippenstein first published this story on 12/06/25 based on a leaked DOJ memo in the piece titled Leak: FBI list of extremists is coming. Bondi ordered the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.” The memo specifically targets any person or group expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” in addition to “anti-Americanism,” anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.”
You would think that Bondi would blush at any actions which trash the 1st amendment, but not our little Pammy. In addition to directing the FBI to target any constitutionally protected dissent; she has established a tip line so MAGA haters can report their unpatriotic neighbors, friends and family members. But our little Pammy further proves her deplorable nature by directing her FBI to create a cash reward system to anyone who provides information regarding the identification and arrest of leaders in these alleged domestic terrorist organizations. NSPM-7 also directs the FBI to “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of these alleged domestic terrorist groups.
Protected 1st Amendment Activity Or Domestic Terrorism?
The central danger of NSPM-7 lies in the vague wording used to establish a case for domestic terrorism. Ken Klippenstein explained that Attorney General Pam Bondi has targeted as possible domestic terrorists those who voice “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.” While such sentiments may sound rude to some, this type of speech constitutes protected 1st Amendment activities. Klippenstein wrote further in a separate piece titled Trump’s NSPM-7 labels common beliefs, detailing how NSPM-7 speaks to alleged indicators of future violence. They are listed as follows:
- “anti-Americanism,
- anti-capitalism,
- anti-Christianity,
- support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
- extremism on migration,
- extremism on race,
- extremism on gender
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
- hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.”
So, what constitutes acceptable views on morality or traditional American views on family, religion, etc? How does this directive comport with the 1st Amendment? How does NSPM-7 define what it terms as a pre-crime endeavor as stated: “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.” That quoted language also appears in the White House memo page Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.
1st amendment protections vs. Trump administration
The 1st amendment is pretty clear on free speech and free press rights. To quote (via the National Constitution Center page on Amendment I:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Supreme Court has historically interpreted the 1st amendment to be irrefutable with few exceptions to vigorous speech and press rights. Government may not censor and subsequently criminalize speech based on its content. Without such an interpretation, free speech rights would be little more than a cruel joke, yet NSPM-7 establishes criminal investigation and penalties for speech this administration deems an existential threat to Trump’s fascist wet dreams. The memorandum arbitrarily targets any speech which Trump names as unacceptable based on his addled whims.
In this country, we don’t prosecute anyone for pre-crime activities. For that matter, the 1st Amendment is clear, government may not infringe or otherwise punish anyone for the content of their speech (much less their thoughts). To compound the obscenity of this attack on the 1st Amendment; we have a directive from the US Attorney General, in conjunction with a national security presidential memorandum, that bases the alleged security threat of antifa with a one-page summary document. The administration has failed to produce any additional documentation, other than this biased single-page statement.
The goal of this memorandum is clear. It targets specific political challengers for criminal prosecution based on the content of their speech, as opposed to enforcing an actual impartial rendering of the law based on facts and constitutional principles. There is no legitimacy to NSPM-7. It is nothing but a political hit list using the veneer of law as artifice to justify crimes against the Constitution and democracy itself.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has made criminalizing the free speech rights of political dissenters her quixotic quest for Trump, the would be dictator. This is in violation of Bondi’s oath as Attorney General and as an attorney. So, what is the answer to a corrupt president and an equally corrupt U.S. Attorney General? Do we find a way to criminally prosecute our little Pammy, or send her back to a high school civics class, and a support group for bigoted anorexics?
COMMENTS