In recent discussions, it’s become increasingly clear how political narratives shape public perception. The upcoming protests and rising tensions in the U.S. are concerning, especially with the Trump Administration categorizing various beliefs as potential terrorism under the National Security Presidential Memorandum known as NSPM-7. Currently, the focus remains on traditional adversaries of the hard right, such as climate advocates, supporters of gender and racial equality, and those opposed to the actions of Israel. As energy and food prices continue to climb, we may see increasing unrest among a populace facing growing desperation, leading to a different kind of volatility. The question then becomes: what will happen when frustrations boil over?
Now, let’s delve into the core issues at hand.
Although NSPM-7 lacks substantial legal grounding, it serves to intimidate free speech and activism that the current administration finds unfavorable. The memo paints broad strokes, vilifying significant portions of public opinion and effectively acting as a signal for private enterprises to enforce these views. With at-will employment prevailing in much of the U.S., individuals engaging in “wrong-think” may find their job prospects diminished in an already challenging market.
In the memo, when the president references the “designation” of groups as “domestic terrorism organizations,” it’s a seriously stigmatizing label that lacks legal enforcement. No existing domestic terrorism labeling structure exists, as Congress has failed to establish one. This is wise, as it would inevitably encroach upon First Amendment rights. Regardless of their ideological stance, every civil society organization may risk their freedoms if such regulations were enacted. Consequently, no singular crime of “domestic terrorism” exists.
To clarify, any political or legal definition of “terrorism” involves ideological motivations, and serious First Amendment issues arise when sanctions attach to groups based solely on beliefs rather than actionable criminal behavior—which is already prohibited.
The memo is an amalgamation of conspiracies and inaccuracies, on top of the president’s conflation of legitimate criticism with “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.” It conflates few acts of real criminal conduct with constitutionally protected beliefs and protests against presidential policies, mislabeling them as “political violence.” Furthermore, the memo ignores a responsible understanding of actual political violence, which does not fit neatly into ideological categories, remains rare, and increases in frequency. An important example, the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, is strikingly absent from NSPM-7.
One of the most disconcerting aspects of the memo is its use of vague terminology that could impact First Amendment-protected beliefs, such as “Anti-Americanism” and “extremism on migration, race, and gender.” It suggests that even supporting “law enforcement and border control” could be misconstrued as subversive. This has led many within civil society to perceive NSPM-7’s language as a risk to human rights and civil liberties.
In the memo, federal departments and law enforcement agencies are instructed to concentrate their existing powers on investigating civil society groups—including nonprofits and activists—to disrupt the president’s skewed interpretation of “terrorism” and “political violence.”
Now, let’s shift focus to the crux of the matter.
By Kyle Schmidlin, a freelance writer who runs the Third Rail News blog. Originally published at Common Dreams
One notable trait of right-wing propagandists is their ability to deliver statements that are deeply flawed, leading to the need for extensive analysis. A recent Fox News post exemplifies this perfectly by summarizing a longer article about political movements with:
Anti-Israel agitators. Climate activists. Communist groups.
Experts warn that a growing network of activists united by anti-American sentiment—and, in some instances, China-related funding—is now targeting America’s AI infrastructure and industrial capabilities.
Fox News Digital highlights that these movements are protesting together nationwide, including groups opposing new AI data centers due to energy and environmental concerns.
“What all these protests share… is that anti-American trend within them,” said Hudson Institute fellow Zineb Riboua.
This portrayal attempts to frame critics of far-right corporate interests as “anti-American.” However, the article’s lack of nuance reveals it as nothing more than propaganda.
With the Trump administration and the recent release of NSPM-7—which seeks to juxtapose certain beliefs with terrorism—this messaging takes on graver implications.
Collectively, the groups being targeted represent a significant segment of the American populace. They are not united by anti-American sentiments but by opposition to numerous facets of the fascist tech-petro-state that the Trump administration is trying to establish, which is rooted in legitimate grievances.
Anti-Israel Agitators
Labeling critics of U.S.-Israeli policy as “anti-Israel agitators” aims to dismiss them as irrational extremists—and, according to Fox News, anti-American as well. While space here is limited to delve into the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it’s essential to recognize the depth of these issues.
Israel’s actions in Gaza over recent years, coupled with decades of mistreatment of Palestinians, has led to broad condemnation. With U.S. funding and bipartisan support for such actions, many believe this has overall deteriorated its public image: approximately 60% of U.S. adults hold unfavorable views towards Israel, according to Pew. This raises an important question: can 60% of Americans truly be labeled as anti-American?
Climate Activists and Communists
Climate advocates and communists often find themselves at odds with corporate interests represented by Fox News and the Republican Party. While they may not have significant visibility in modern American politics, such terms are frequently weaponized for sensationalism.
The notion that caring for the environment limits national defense or energy options is often propagated, masking ulterior motives tied to the right-wing agenda. The push to limit green energy—an initiative Trump pursued in 2025—serves the interests of oil moguls while neglecting the growing demand for clean energy. It’s important to note that advocating for environmental stewardship doesn’t equate to being un-American. The Constitution does not dictate this nation should be a petrostate; it remains agnostic on economic organization, which highlights the fallacy in labeling environmental or leftist beliefs as anti-American.
AI Data Center Opponents
Big Tech and corporate interests aggressively advocate for the necessity of winning the AI race against China, yet public sentiment remains unconvinced. According to Gallup, 70% of Americans oppose the construction of AI data centers in their communities. Notably, this opposition spans across party lines, making it challenging for Fox News to label it as anti-American, considering the environmental impact and resources drained by these enterprises.
As tech leaders prioritize profits over the well-being of communities, opposition continues to grow across the U.S. Even in typically conservative regions, like Utah, local residents demand accountability from Big Tech.
The Chinese Anti-American Subversion Theory
The article further complicates matters by asserting vague links between grassroots movements and “Chinese funding.” The claims of foreign subversion, including mentioning one alleged financier, Neville Roy Singham, remain largely unsubstantiated. The insinuation connects a range of differing agendas under the anti-American umbrella, but this strategy serves to discredit valid grievances rather than substantiate accusations.
By applying the label of “anti-Americanism,” Fox News essentially casts the majority of Americans as adversaries under NSPM-7. Within the framework of this memo, sentiments deemed anti-American—ranging from anti-capitalism to opposition to traditional values—could lead to actions against individuals, compromising their safety and freedoms.
The consequences of NSPM-7 remain uncertain in practical application. Its broad language allows for interpretation that could target civilians based on dissenting views, chill public discourse, and lay the groundwork for future investigations against Americans unwilling to fall in line.
As political climates grow increasingly fraught, and figures like Trump reclaim power and influence, there’s a pressing concern that official state resources may be leveraged against dissenters. Reports suggest that multiple U.S. agencies are already surveilling groups identified as “anti-tech extremism,” which may encompass constitutionally protected activities as innocuous as taking photographs.
Claiming that most Americans stand as anti-American is a bold assertion from Fox News, emphasizing the depths of propaganda’s disregard for reality. To truly address the underlying beliefs shaping public sentiment will require a thoughtful approach that may take significant time.
Given today’s charged political environment and the potential ramifications of actions like NSPM-7, it is crucial to recognize that advocacy for environmental protection, support for Palestine, and opposition to harmful AI technologies are not only valid but deeply rooted in American values.
