Amid shifting political landscapes, the Trump administration has significantly broadened the definition of “terrorism,” leading to accusations against members of Antifa who are now facing charges for allegedly “providing material support to terrorists.”
NSPM-7 Expands the Scope
Previous discussions have examined Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum from September 25 titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence” (NSPM-7).
Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, described NSPM-7 as “the first time in American history that there is an all-of-government effort to dismantle left-wing terrorism.”
Ken Klippenstein characterized the memo as follows:
NSPM-7 directs the Justice Department, FBI, and other national security entities to combat what the President defines as political violence in America. By restructuring a network of Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the focus now sharply centers on “leftist” political violence. As Miller noted, this configuration would serve as “the central hub of that effort.”
The memorandum also outlines a new national strategy to proactively “disrupt” any individuals or groups deemed to incite political violence, even before such actions escalate into actual violence.
In essence, the focus is on preemptive intervention, akin to the concept presented in *Minority Report*.
The administration is not only targeting organizations but also individuals and “entities” identified through a range of indicators of potential violence, including:
- anti-American sentiments,
- anti-capitalistic views,
- anti-Christian attitudes,
- advocacy for the overthrow of the U.S. Government,
- extreme stances on immigration,
- racial extremism,
- gender extremism,
- disdain for traditional views on family,
- resistance to conventional religious beliefs, and
- hostility towards conventional standards of morality.
The document asserts, “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.”
With a broad brushstroke from NSPM-7, the Trump administration is now refining the details.
Bondi Outlines a Tactical Framework
In December, Attorney General Pam Bondi unveiled a memo titled “On Countering Domestic Terrorism And Organized Political Violence,” described by Klippenstein as a tactical blueprint for targeting those not aligned with the MAGA agenda.
The memo opens with a section titled “Defining the Domestic Terrorism Threat,” stating that “certain Antifa-aligned extremists” embrace extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideologies, and anti-American sentiments, with a readiness to employ violence against lawful citizens.
Additionally, it expresses that whenever domestic terrorism is detected or suspected, relevant law enforcement should report such instances to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) for comprehensive investigations as indicated in NSPM-7.
Bondi delineated acts of domestic terrorism as:
These may encompass organized rioting, looting, doxing, swatting, and conspiracies to obstruct or assault law enforcement, damage property, or engage in violent civil disturbances. Law enforcement agencies are required to refer these incidents to the JTTFs for investigation. Upon receiving these referrals, the JTTFs will employ all available investigative resources, in accordance with internal policies and legal parameters, to map the entire network of culpable individuals involved in the reported conduct both domestically and internationally.
Notably, “doxing” is categorized among the prohibited acts.
Understanding Doxing’s Implications
Reason.com elaborates on the memo’s reference to “doxing”:
Though the term is not explicitly defined in the memorandum, it is generally interpreted to mean disclosing the identities of law enforcement officials, a practice the Justice Department implies is a threatening maneuver aimed at stifling dissent, curtailing political involvement, skewing policy outcomes, and obstructing democratic processes.
This interpretation aligns with earlier assertions made by DHS officials, such as Noem in July: “Violence encompasses anything that jeopardizes [agents] and their safety; therefore, it includes doxing and filming them during operations.”
However, much of what the Trump administration characterizes as “doxing” is merely the act of observers recording officers performing their duties—an activity protected under the First Amendment when conducted without interference or danger, serving as an essential mechanism for accountability. By broadly categorizing actions like doxing as domestic terrorism, the administration risks implementing a “nationwide policy of intimidation against individuals documenting and observing DHS operations,” according to David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
This vague definition raises concerns that even the DHS’s own media teams, hired to record and disseminate information about immigration operations, could face prosecution under this framework. The only determining factor appears to be whether the individual is viewed as an ally or adversary of Trump’s administration—an “Antifa-aligned extremist,” as defined in the December 4 memo, partially highlighting those with “extreme views on immigration,” such as advocating for “mass migration and open borders.”
Bondi’s memo does more than inhibit protected First Amendment activities; it also establishes an FBI tip line for public informants.
FBI Initiates Tip Line for Citizens
Klippenstein details the incentives outlined in Bondi’s memorandum:
Bondi instructs the FBI to augment the visibility and effectiveness of its tip line to fervently encourage the public to report on other Americans. In this vein, she directs the FBI to create “a cash reward system” for information leading to the identification and arrest of key figures within these so-called domestic terrorist organizations. (The memo later advises the FBI to establish informants to provide information and ultimately testify against other group members).
Funding avenues have also shifted; Justice Department grants will now prioritize resources for state and local law enforcement to combat domestic terrorism.
One can’t help but question whether the organized pushback ICE faced in Chicago will fall under the auspices of NSPM-7.
Communities Mobilizing Against ICE
Melissa Gira Grant detailed for The New Republic a network of rapid-response groups formed in recent months to shield immigrant communities from the administration’s extensive deportation measures.
She highlights legal measures taken by Illinois officials (some discussed previously):
The mayor has issued an executive order declaring certain city properties as “ICE-Free Zones.” A federal judge has compelled some officials, including Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, to testify under oath, mandating updates on the operations. However, neither political nor legal interventions have managed to disrupt ICE’s ongoing activities significantly. Reports suggest that these ICE-free zones have not deterred ICE agents, and the often slow legal system predominantly provides recourse only after rights violations occur. Even when courts instruct ICE or CBP to cease certain aggressive actions, agents have disregarded those orders, resulting in continued traumatic arrests occurring.
Gira Grant contrasts the official responses with community mobilization against ICE:
True efficacy in resistance has emerged from the community; local residents have united, sharing training and connecting across neighborhoods to develop groups like the Southwest Side Rapid Response Team. They possess vigilance, neighborhood trust, and the capability to respond promptly, disseminating information about ICE activities across the state. They gather evidence and relay it swiftly to rights organizations, news outlets, and social media. This blend of protest and direct action offers tangible support for Chicagoans opposing Trump’s immigration policies. It represents authentic grassroots movement-building, anticipated to continue beyond the current threats to these communities, even beyond this administration. ICE, CBP, and similar entities have faced violent retribution against these groups, as they recognize what many overlook: organized neighborhoods present a potent defense and constitute a formidable adversary.
Reports in November suggested that DHS had withdrawn from Chicago, possibly due to this organized resistance.
However, the reprieve for Chicago was short-lived.
Gregory Bovino Returns
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino was occupied in New Orleans in early December but returned to Illinois on December 17:
Bovino, previously involved in several contentious use-of-force cases during Operation Midway Blitz, resurfaced in the Chicago area on Tuesday.
This latest enforcement action makes it clear that although some may consider Operation Midway Blitz as “over,” it continues.
A source informed CBS News Chicago that this would not be the last instance of federal agents appearing in significant numbers in the city. A representative from the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Bovino’s temporary return to Chicago to pursue immigration enforcement, without disclosing his intended return to Louisiana.
In footage shared with CBS News Chicago by a rapid response group, Bovino appears on a sidewalk among several agents, engaging in light conversation. This was captured near Midway International Airport, close to where he was first observed in Cicero.
Bovino and his tactical team wasted no time detaining individuals seemingly at random from the streets. Federal agents sped through Little Village, frequently stopping and interacting with protesters along the way.
Neighbors attempted to obstruct agents’ path using a large rock on 26th Street, but their efforts were in vain. Groups of residents and protesters remained active throughout Little Village, using whistles, filming, and confronting agents during their operations.
The resistance in Chicagoland may find that their victory over ICE was temporary.
Nationwide DHS Investigations
A recent piece by The Guardian on FBI “domestic terrorism investigations” featured a map highlighting the extensive investigations occurring in Chicagoland:
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) December 29, 2025
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how effectively Chicago’s organized resistance will navigate the challenges posed by ICE under NSPM-7, especially in light of troubling developments in Texas.
Antifa Allegations Lead to Guilty Pleas
Previously covered, the July 7 event has emerged as a significant focus for U.S. and Texas law enforcement, now termed the “Prarieland attack,” with new updates forthcoming.
Another report by The Guardian sheds light on the administration’s first significant win under NSPM-7:
The Justice Department announced terrorism charges against two individuals affiliated with a “North Texas Antifa cell.” Prosecutors allege this group orchestrated an attack at ICE’s Prairieland detention facility, resulting in shots fired at two correctional officers and a police officer sustaining a non-fatal gunshot wound. Ultimately, authorities arrested 18 individuals who were equipped in tactical gear and allegedly conspired the attack.
This marks the inaugural instance in which the government has filed terrorism charges against Antifa. In total, 15 individuals are charged with providing material support for terrorism, in addition to facing state charges and a slew of other federal allegations tied to rioting, possession of explosives, firearms offenses, and attempted murder of federal personnel.
…
There is undeniable evidence that a police officer was shot amidst the protests. Prosecutors have also pursued charges against those believed to have aided the shooter’s escape. Alarmingly, however, the government’s strategy appears to smear not only those directly involved in the violence but also those who were simply protesting, raising concerns among legal experts about the objective of curtailing leftist organizations and dissuading protests. Six defendants have already entered guilty pleas for providing material support to terrorism.Xavier de Janon, director of mass defense at the National Lawyers Guild, remarked, “This could unsettle individuals nationwide, as anyone in their circles could find themselves similarly charged.” He fears that the precedent could lead to terrorism charges for individuals engaged in seemingly normative activism.
Reports indicate that the case’s complexities often contradict the administration’s narrative, revealing questions around whether the defendants harbored any intent to incite violence or damage federal property. Families and attorneys have suggested that several of those charged had no links to Antifa and that the terrorism charges do not correlate with the defendants’ ideologies.
Significantly, the prosecution appears intent on establishing a criminal network—a “North Texas Antifa cell”—among individuals who, at times, had no prior acquaintance and met for the first time at the protest, using leftist literature, seized flyers, encrypted communications on Signal, and attire worn during the event to construct their narrative.
The outcomes of NSPM-7’s broad definitions and applications remain uncertain. As this developing situation unfolds, efforts will continue to keep readers informed.
