Trump’s 'Counterterrorism' Memo Is Meant To Silence Dissent
Trump’s ‘Counterterrorism’ Memo: A Blueprint For Silencing Dissent
Donald Trump’s new “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence” presidential memorandum masquerades as a tough law enforcement tool. But for those of us who speak against systemic violence—on racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, gender equity—this document reads like a declaration of war. Under the guise of protecting national security, it seeks to redefine dissent as terror, punish critique as conspiracy, and silence voices that challenge power.
In its text, the memorandum catalogs assassination attempts, riots, doxing campaigns, and “networks of organized violence.” Trump invokes the killing of Charlie Kirk, threats against judges, and the targeting of ICE facilities. On the surface, it reads like an understandable response to what can be perceived as rising instability, but when you ask who the government intends to investigate, the picture darkens. The policy doesn’t or won’t focus on white supremacist militias or white Christian nationalist violence—even though extremist data continues to show they are some of the country’s gravest threats.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2024 the U.S. still had over 1,300 hate and extremist groups active—over 500 of them explicitly anti-LGBTQ+ or anti-immigrant. In cities like Los Angeles, hate crimes reported in 2023 jumped 45%, with Black, Latino/a, queer, and trans people disproportionately targeted. Meanwhile, in major U.S. cities in 2024, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim incidents rose sharply: anti-Jewish incidents were up 12%, and anti-Muslim incidents up 18%, compared to recent years. If you call loudly for justice for queer people or Black people, the government now plans to convert your criticism into a case file. This is not mere overreach. This is a project of political suppression.
The memorandum authorizes Joint Terrorism Task Forces to pursue not only violence, but “recruiting or radicalizing persons” for political violence or conspiracy. Under this language, any strong speech—particularly speech about structural racism, capitalism, abolition, or state violence—could be reinterpreted as a threat.
This scenario evokes COINTELPRO, the FBI program that sabotaged Black freedom movements in the last century. COINTELPRO disrupted, surveilled, and threw activists into disarray. This memorandum remakes that model for the 21st century: label critique as political violence, surveil organizations, deprive funding, make speech itself punishable. The difference is in the technology and scope—not in the strategy.
The memo’s choice of incendiary language confirms this. It describes anti-fascist or anti-government movements as rallying cries for assassination or violent overthrow. But history and data tell another story. The real political violence that haunts us today—largely ignored by this administration—comes overwhelmingly from white supremacist, Christian nationalist, and male supremacist groups.
Groups like Patriot Front, which accounts for a majority of white supremacist propaganda spreading, or organizations like Nationalist Social Club 131 and Hammerskins, which espouse neo-Nazi ideologies, pose actual danger. And yet, these names and networks are absent from the document’s priority list. Instead, it places progressive and marginalized speech in the crosshairs. This policy is not aimed at protecting democracy—it is aimed at policing which voices may feed it.
Even worse, the timing is telling. The memorandum was signed just days after Trump’s executive order labeling “Antifa” a terrorist organization—a designation widely criticized by legal scholars for its constitutional infirmity. Trump uses violence against conservatives as a pretext to broaden powers aimed at progressives. He may claim he is reducing terror, but he is expanding repression.
If this memorandum is taken seriously by law enforcement, we will see a chilling effect across the country. Professors will hesitate to fully engage in academic freedom. Journalists will self-censor. Activists will avoid tactics that invite scrutiny, even when those tactics are peaceful. The speech we need most—about race, capitalism, queer bodies, and state violence—will be the first to vanish.
We have to refuse that future. Legal defenders, constitutional scholars, civil rights groups must challenge NSPM-7 in the courts. We must demand clarity: if you want to counter terrorism, show us that you are tracking white supremacist networks, Christian nationalist violence, attacks on queer people, hate crime hot spots—not silencing critique. Movement groups must double down on narrative power, refusing to let our stories be reduced or erased. Media professionals must pledge not to retract essential critiques under pressure. People with platforms must resist self-censorship. Supporting legal funds, grassroots organizations, and defense funds for people targeted under this framework will be essential.
Our power lies not in silence but in speaking truth. No matter how aggressively the state advances its apparatus, truth-tellers have always held a special vulnerability—and a special strength. If Trump truly wanted to counter domestic terror, he would sharpen his focus on real networks of hate, protect marginalized bodies, and amplify dissent, not suppress it. This memorandum is not about terror. It is about policing speech and ensuring that power goes unchecked. For those of us whose lives and voices have long been edged out of national conversation, the imperative is clear: we must lean in harder, together.
Preston Mitchum is a policy consultant, attorney-activist, and television personality whose work focuses on the intersections of racial justice, health and gender equity, and LGBTQ+ rights.
SEE ALSO:
