Standing Up for America’s Civil Society and the Right to Peacefully Protest

On Sept. 10, 2025, a lone gunman allegedly killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus in Utah. Trump administration officials quickly seized on the shooting to attack their political and ideological foes, portraying Kirk’s murder as part of an organized, nationwide campaign of leftwing terror. “We're going to go after the NGO [non-governmental organization] network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence,” Vice President J.D. Vance declared. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller insisted that a “vast domestic terror movement” exists on U.S. soil. Miller vowed to “channel all of the anger” generated by Kirk’s death “to uproot and dismantle these ‘terrorist’ networks,” saying the Trump administration would unleash the power of the federal government “to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks.”

More than four months have passed since Kirk’s horrific death. No one, except the alleged gunman, has been charged in his murder. The administration has not produced any evidence showing that a “terrorist” network fomented the attack. Nor has the administration produced evidence showing that the alleged killer had any association with progressive organizations.

But that hasn’t persuaded the Trump administration from using Kirk’s murder as a pretext to launch a campaign against its overwhelmingly peaceful opposition—portraying a broad range of organizations, protesters and activists opposed to Trump’s unconstitutional policies as “domestic terrorists.” This campaign is not based on empirical observations. Indeed, the data consistently show that the preponderance of political violence comes from rightwing actors, not leftwing extremists. Nevertheless, the administration is using the same playbook to instantaneously smear anyone who stands up to its authoritarian agenda—especially its heavy-handed and often lawless pursuit of migrants.

For instance, after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother driving a Honda Pilot, Vance quickly insisted that she was part of a “broader leftwing network” that is employing “domestic terror techniques.” Similarly, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem labeled Good’s actions an “act of domestic terrorism” and claimed “it’s clear that it’s being coordinated,” with people “being trained and told how to use their vehicles to impede law enforcement operations.” Vance and Noem made these claims before any investigation into Good’s background could have been completed.

The smears levied by the administration against Good are absurd and disgraceful. Obviously, she was no “domestic terrorist.” Detailed analysis of video from the scene shows that Good was not attempting to run the ICE agent over when she was fatally shot. Quite the opposite: she turned the wheel of her car away from ICE’s men. “That's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you,” Good said before she was killed—hardly the words of a “terrorist.”

Through a series of official executive memoranda, the Trump administration has turned the machinery of federal law enforcement into an organized effort to go after their political opponents and civil society organizations in the name of protecting against so-called “domestic terrorism.” As discussed more fully below, this campaign has been outlined in a series of official government documents, including: National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7), a memo written by Attorney General Pam Bondi and two official designations of “Antifa” as a terrorist organization. These documents are dissected below. The threat they pose to free speech is clear.

However, there are strong legal protections against these threats.

NPSM-7 and Attorney General Bondi’s Memo: A Threat to the First Amendment

On Sept. 21, 2025, the Trump White House issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) titled, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” It echoes the claims made by Vance and Miller in the wake of Kirk’s murder. For example, the memorandum reads: “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.”

NSPM-7 does not identify these “networks.” Instead, its authors assert that a range of beliefs are inherently dangerous and even indicative of the threat of “political violence.” Tellingly, there is no mention of the First Amendment or the necessity of protecting the right to free speech.

America’s law enforcement agencies have long drawn a bright red line around First Amendment activity, making clear that speech alone is not a valid basis for opening criminal investigations. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) June 2023 strategic intelligence assessment on domestic terrorism, as submitted to Congress, states that law enforcement officials “do not investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment.” Furthermore, “[u]nder FBI policy and federal law, no investigative activity may be based solely on activity protected by the First Amendment, or the apparent or actual race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity of an individual or group.”

With NSPM-7, the Trump administration is attempting to undermine this longstanding constitutional safeguard. The authors of NSPM-7 assert, without offering any evidence, that there “are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting” a “pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described ‘anti-fascism.’” NSPM-7 reads:

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.

The Trump administration portrays “support for law enforcement and border control” as “foundational American principles,” arguing that critics who describe the administration’s policies as “fascist” are attempting “to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution.” Thus, the administration attempts to brand activists and others opposed to its immigration policies as violent threats. This is the exact same frame the administration used to smear Renee Good.

NSPM-7’s broad capture of “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views of family, religion, and morality” reads like an attempt to dictate morality by executive fiat and poses a serious threat to free speech.

NSPM-7 also takes an alarmingly expansive view of what constitutes a terrorist act—including actions such as doxing and even trespassing. Doxing is “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.” This is a stretch as, for example, the FBI has not listed doxing in its formal definitions of terrorist activity. If doxing is to be considered domestic terrorism now, then the Trump administration should be investigating its own political allies. Kirk’s Turning Point USA, for instance, has allegedly led doxing campaigns that have generated threats and other harassment of university professors.

NSPM-7 goes far beyond the previous guidance followed by DHS and FBI, seemingly opening the door for criminal investigations to be opened even on protected First Amendment activity. Indeed, under NSPM-7, the Trump administration has directed multiple branches of the federal government to take investigative or other actions that threaten free speech. For instance, the IRS, Department of Treasury and the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are all commanded to act. So, too, was the Attorney General, who was ordered to “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.”

As first reported by Ken Klippenstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up on NSPM-7’s directive by issuing her own memorandum, which included much of the same language. Bondi’s memo orders the FBI to “map the full network of culpable actors,” establish a “cash reward system” for identifying leading figures in these organizations, and “to establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members.”

All of this is based on the administration’s evidence-free claims—first made in the wake of Kirk’s murder—that there is a cohesive leftwing “terrorist network” that needs to be dismantled.

Designating “Antifa” as a Domestic and Foreign Terrorist Organization

The administration is making “Antifa”—a decentralized movement of “anti-fascists”—central to its attack on civil society, portraying it as a cohesive terrorist organization that threatens all Americans. “Antifa is an existential threat to our nation,” Bondi has claimed. Secretary Noem has argued that the “network of Antifa is just as sophisticated as” the Islamic State (ISIS) and Hezbollah, two international terrorist organizations that have wreaked havoc around the globe, killing tens of thousands and conquering large portions of territory.

Prior to the second Trump administration, the FBI did not even consider “Antifa” to be an organized terrorist entity. “It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology,” FBI director Christopher Wray testified in September 2020. Still, the FBI consistently made it clear that individuals threatening to carry out acts of violence in the name of the “anti-fascist” ideology were being investigated. Regardless, the second Trump administration has turned “Antifa” into a bogeyman.

In a Sept. 22, 2025 executive order, Trump designated “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization” and made a broad call to federal agencies to “utilize all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations.” An accompanying White House “fact sheet” claims—without any evidence—that “Antifa engages in coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws, with the goal of achieving policy objectives by coercion and intimidation—this is domestic terrorism.” It goes on to paint Antifa—largely understood to be a decentralized movement—as a coordinated enterprise that “recruits and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and works to conceal identities of members and funding sources, frustrating law enforcement efforts.” The fact sheet fails to identify any “Antifa leaders,” let alone a hierarchy or chain of command. Nor does it identify any common organizational elements, such as sources of funding, training infrastructure for violent extremists, or a propaganda hub. Whereas ISIS and Hezbollah have killed tens of thousands around the globe, the White House could not point to any deaths caused by “Antifa” actors.

The memo also fails to cite any statutory authority that would permit the president to designate groups as domestic terrorist organizations. As explained at length in a previous essay, the U.S. government has not maintained an official list of “domestic terrorist organizations” (DTOs) because there is no statutory basis for doing so. While federal law enforcement agencies have certainly investigated and prosecuted domestic terrorists, there is no basis for charging them as domestic terrorists under the law. In fact, the FBI has not designated any group as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The Congressional Research Service has explained the FBI’s rationale: “Doing so may infringe on First Amendment-protected free speech—belonging to an ideological group in and of itself is not a crime in the United States.”

On Nov. 13, the State Department added four European entities to the U.S. government’s list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), claiming that they are affiliated with “Antifa.” All four—Antifa Ost, the Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI), Armed Proletarian Justice, and Revolutionary Class Self-Defense—were subsequently designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) on Nov. 20.

The designations did not support the administration’s case that Antifa presents an “existential” threat to Americans. If anything, the designations expose the administration’s exaggerations and falsehoods. As explained elsewhere: three of the four loosely-termed groups are not even branded as “Antifa”; none of them is alleged to have killed or even threatened Americans (a statutory requirement for FTO designation); and the one entity that does identify as “Antifa” was designated, in part, for street fights with notorious neo-Nazi organizations during a far-right rally in Budapest, Hungary. Those neo-Nazi groups, even though they have directly threatened American and European civilians, have not been added to the U.S. government’s FTO list—an omission that further exposes the Trump administration’s ideological and political agenda.

Although the administration’s DTO designation lacks statutory teeth, the same cannot be said for the FTO designations. As explained by Thomas Brzozowski, the former Counsel for Domestic Terrorism in the Counterterrorism Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, such designations could be used to undermine the civil liberties of Americans. The FTO framework contains powerful tools for denaturalizing citizens and conducting surveillance. The administration has not yet designated any supposed “Antifa” groups inside the United States as an FTO—a move that would directly trigger Brzozowski’s warnings. And it is not clear how the administration could even begin to justify such an action, given that “Antifa” is anything but a unified organization.

But still, the threat remains. The administration is abusing the government’s counterterrorism tools, rooted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, to crack down on domestic opposition inside the United States.

Standing Up for Free Speech

Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) is proud to help lead a coalition of organizations that is standing up for civil society. Make no mistake: the U.S. Constitution is on this coalition’s side. The administration’s clear violations of the First Amendment and other unconstitutional actions can be challenged in the court—and struck down. Indeed, DDF has already had success in this regard.

On Dec. 23, 2025, for instance, the State Department imposed visa bans on five European nationals, accusing them of censoring free speech. One of these individuals, Imran Ahmed, is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which “works to stop the spread of online hate and disinformation through innovative research, public campaigns and policy advocacy.” The organization was founded “to look into the growth of antisemitism on the political left,” according to Ahmed, but the administration has portrayed it as a vehicle for censoring conservatives.

DDF, along with its legal partners, quickly moved to defend Ahmed by filing a lawsuit against key administration officials, seeking to block them from taking further action against Ahmed. District Judge Vernon Broderick, of the Southern District of New York, agreed with Ahmed’s defense, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Christmas Day 2025 that blocked the administration from arresting or detaining him. The TRO was extended and the case will now proceed to trial, with Ahmed’s constitutional rights at the heart of his defense.

Of course, the actions against Ahmed and the four other individuals targeted were not the first instance of the Trump administration attacking foreign nationals. As pointed out in the initial brief of Ahmed’s lawsuit, his case has strong parallels with Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student whom the administration sought to depot over his pro-Palestinian views earlier in 2025. The threats against Ahmed are part of a larger campaign to silence the voices of any who disagree with them or seek to expose their authoritarian agenda.

The administration’s war on “domestic terror” is a direct threat to the civil liberties of all persons inside the United States. Fortunately, the First Amendment provides strong free speech protections that can and should be invoked. As in the case of Imran Ahmed, DDF and other members of the pro-democracy coalition remain ready and willing to stand up for civil society.