NSPM-7: The Trump Memo That Could Make Your Church, Union, or Charity a Target!

A little-noticed Trump memo lets the government treat protests, nonprofits, and even donations as “terrorism.”

TL;DR: Trump’s new memo, NSPM-7, quietly hands the government the power to label domestic groups as terrorists, monitor nonprofits and donors, and investigate people before crimes occur. On paper it targets “political violence.” In practice, it redefines dissent — from protests to donations — as potential terrorism. This isn’t new; it echoes COINTELPRO, Nixon’s enemies list, and the Patriot Act. But for the first time, it’s being formalized. Today it’s Antifa. Tomorrow it could be your church, your union, or your family fundraiser.

---

While America’s news cycle spins on Trump’s daily outbursts, something far quieter — and far more dangerous — slipped through the cracks. On September 25, the White House issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive that redefines domestic dissent as a potential national security threat. It didn’t make the nightly news. There were no cable panels, no viral hashtags. But the consequences reach right into your life.

Here’s what NSPM-7 says: the Attorney General can now recommend that domestic groups be formally labeled as terrorist organizations. The IRS is ordered to make sure no tax-exempt nonprofit — from churches to unions to mutual aid groups — is “indirectly financing” political violence. The Treasury Department is tasked with tracing donor networks in the same way it follows money to al-Qaeda or ISIS. On paper, it’s aimed at “extremism.” In practice, it means an ordinary American who donates to a protest group, bail fund, or even a local charity could suddenly find themselves under suspicion.

This isn’t just policy legalese. It’s a shift in how government sees its own people — from citizens with rights to suspects with “indicia” of extremism. And once the precedent exists, the target can change overnight. Today it’s “Antifa.” Tomorrow it could be your union. Your church. Your neighborhood fundraiser. That’s why this forgotten memo may be the most dangerous Trump move yet: it doesn’t just go after his critics. It rewrites the boundaries of dissent itself.

To understand just how sweeping this is, we need to look past the bland legal phrasing and into the machinery it sets in motion. NSPM-7 isn’t just a memo. It’s a blueprint that hands law enforcement, the IRS, and the Treasury tools once reserved for foreign terrorists and turns them inward on Americans. Here’s what it actually does.

We just hit 20,000 subscribers, 1,000 articles, and 1,000 podcast episodes. To celebrate, paid subscriptions are 20% off for two weeks only. That’s just $64/year—less than $1.25 a week.

What NSPM-7 Does

At first glance, NSPM-7 appears to be just another government memo filled with bureaucratic jargon. However, tucked inside are directives that alter the balance between the citizen and the state. The memo gives federal agencies a mandate to treat domestic politics like a counterterrorism battlefield and to treat ordinary Americans like potential enemies.

1. Domestic Terror Designations. For the first time, the Attorney General is authorized to recommend that groups inside the United States be labeled “domestic terrorist organizations.” That label has always been reserved for foreign entities like al-Qaeda or ISIS. Congress deliberately avoided creating a domestic equivalent because of the First Amendment. Now, with a stroke of the president’s pen, the barrier is being breached.

2. IRS Policing of Nonprofits. The IRS is ordered to ensure that no tax-exempt organization is “directly or indirectly financing political violence.” That might sound reasonable until you realize how vague “indirectly” is. A church donating to a migrant shelter, a union’s strike fund, a mutual aid group’s bail support — all of these could fall under suspicion depending on how the government chooses to interpret the phrase.

3. Treasury’s Financial Dragnet. The Treasury is directed to treat domestic financial networks in the same manner as it tracks terrorist financing abroad. Banks are told to flag “suspicious” transactions, and donor networks can be scrutinized with the same intensity used against money flowing to foreign terror cells. In practice, this means that a GoFundMe donation or recurring tithe could trigger a report if it is even loosely linked to activism.

4. Pre-Crime Investigations. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are told to disrupt groups and individuals before violence occurs. That’s not law enforcement reacting to crimes; it’s surveillance and disruption based on ideology or association. Critics call it a “pre-crime” model: punishing intent rather than action.

Together, these pieces form something new. It isn’t just a plan to crack down on extremists. It’s a framework that reclassifies dissent, activism, and even charity as potential terrorism — with law enforcement, the IRS, and the Treasury working in tandem. For ordinary Americans, the risk isn’t what the memo says on paper. It’s how much room it gives the government to stretch those definitions in practice.

And when those definitions are stretched, it’s not extremists who feel the pinch first — it’s ordinary people. That’s where the danger of NSPM-7 moves from the abstract into your kitchen, your church, your union hall.

---

The Kitchen-Table Consequences

It’s easy to hear words like “terrorism designation” or “financial surveillance” and think they apply only to radicals in the shadows. But NSPM-7 doesn’t stop at extremists with Molotov cocktails. Its language is broad enough to sweep in ordinary people doing ordinary things, and that’s where the danger hits home.

Think about donations. A family donates $50 to a bail fund after witnessing young protesters being arrested in their city. Under NSPM-7, the Treasury Department can treat that bail fund as part of a “political violence network” and flag its donors. Suddenly, a household trying to help their neighbors looks like it’s financing terrorism.

Think about churches and charities. A church food pantry partners with a local immigrant-rights group. If that group is deemed “indirectly supporting violence,” the IRS has authority to review the church’s tax-exempt status and even refer its leaders for investigation. A food drive could turn into a legal liability.

Think about unions. A labor union raises money for a strike fund to support workers who walk off the job. If the strike is deemed disruptive enough, or if the union partners with activist groups, that financial support could be cast as “indirect financing of political violence.” Workers fighting for fair wages suddenly appear to be insurgents.

Think about protests themselves. A high school teacher marches in a climate rally, or a veteran attends a march against police brutality. If organizers are ever labeled as part of a “domestic terrorist organization,” everyone who shows up risks being treated as an associate of terrorism. Showing up with a sign becomes evidence of affiliation.

This is why NSPM-7 is so dangerous. It takes activities that millions of Americans view as normal aspects of civic life — donating, volunteering, striking, and protesting — and redefines them through a counterterrorism lens. The chilling effect is obvious: who wants to risk being audited, investigated, or even arrested just for supporting a cause? Fear doesn’t have to jail people to silence them. It only has to make them think twice before speaking up or writing a check.

If that sounds unprecedented, it isn’t. The U.S. government has blurred the lines between dissent and danger before, from Hoover’s FBI to Nixon’s enemies list to the Patriot Act. NSPM-7 doesn’t come out of nowhere. It’s the next step in a pattern.

---

Historical Echoes: We’ve Been Here Before

NSPM-7 isn’t the first time the U.S. government has blurred the line between dissent and danger. In fact, American history is full of examples where authorities branded protest as a threat, and only years later did the public recognize the abuses. The difference now is that Trump is trying to formalize those tactics into standing policy.

COINTELPRO (1956–1971). Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI launched a covert program to “expose, disrupt, and neutralize” civil rights groups, anti-war activists, and leftist organizations. Martin Luther King Jr. was surveilled, harassed, and even urged to commit suicide by FBI letters. The Black Panthers were infiltrated and dismantled under the guise of fighting “extremism.”

Nixon’s Enemies List (1971). President Richard Nixon directed agencies to target journalists, activists, and politicians he considered enemies. The IRS was weaponized to audit dissenters, while the FBI and CIA were told to gather dirt. What was supposed to be neutral enforcement became a political tool of retaliation.

The USA PATRIOT Act (2001). In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed legislation that vastly expanded surveillance powers. Though marketed as a counterterrorism tool, it quickly bled into domestic life: the FBI used National Security Letters to obtain Americans’ financial and communication records without warrants, and “material support for terrorism” charges were applied broadly to U.S.-based individuals.

Each of these moments shows the same playbook: paint dissent as dangerous, use law enforcement or financial powers to cripple it, and only later face public outrage. The difference with NSPM-7 is scope. Instead of a secret FBI program or a rushed anti-terror law, this is a presidential directive that openly hands domestic terror designation powers to the Attorney General, IRS, and Treasury. In other words, the abuses of the past are now being baked into the rules of the present.

And America isn’t alone in walking this path. Around the world, authoritarians have perfected the same playbook, and NSPM-7 reads like their script translated into English.

---

Authoritarian Playbook: The Global Pattern

If NSPM-7 feels extreme, it’s because Americans aren’t used to seeing this kind of power turned inward. However, around the world, the same playbook has been repeatedly used to weaken democracy. The steps are always familiar: redefine dissent as terrorism, weaponize tax and financial oversight, and use “security” to justify silencing critics.

Hungary under Viktor Orbán. Orbán has steadily gutted civil society by passing laws that force nonprofits receiving foreign funding to register as “foreign agents” and brand themselves as suspect. His government has used tax authorities to harass NGOs critical of the regime, while state media paints them as security threats.

Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan declared a sweeping state of emergency. Thousands of NGOs were shut down, journalists were jailed, and opposition figures were charged as “terrorists.” The broad label of “terrorism” was used to criminalize peaceful dissent, especially among Kurdish groups and leftist activists.

Russia under Vladimir Putin. Russia’s infamous “foreign agent” law forced NGOs, media outlets, and activists receiving outside funding to register as agents of foreign powers. In practice, it allowed the Kremlin to brand critics as enemies of the state. Over time, the list expanded to include not only international NGOs but also local charities, human rights groups, and independent journalists.

The pattern is clear: authoritarian governments don’t start by banning dissent outright. They start by redefining it as a threat to “security” or “public order.” They use finance laws, terror labels, and bureaucratic hurdles to strangle civic life until only loyal voices remain. NSPM-7 is America’s step onto that same path. It doesn’t just mirror the tactics of Orbán, Erdoğan, or Putin. It risks normalizing them here at home.

Civil liberties advocates aren’t waiting for that to happen. From the ACLU to constitutional scholars, the warnings are already pouring in.

---

Civil Liberties Pushback & Legal Risks

Civil liberties groups and legal scholars are already sounding the alarm. They argue that NSPM-7 doesn’t just stretch the law — it tramples constitutional boundaries.

The ACLU called the directive “a blueprint for targeting nonprofits, activists, and ordinary donors under the guise of fighting terrorism,” warning that its vague definitions invite abuse. Their concern is straightforward: when the government equates dissent with violence, the First Amendment becomes collateral damage.

Legal scholars point to the lack of statutory authority. There is no legal mechanism for designating domestic terrorist organizations. That power exists only for foreign groups through the U.S. Department of State. By inventing a domestic equivalent through a presidential memorandum, Trump is entering territory that Congress has deliberately avoided. As one analysis put it: “The President cannot create new crimes by memo.”

There’s also the risk of selective enforcement. NSPM-7’s language about “anti-Americanism” or “hostility to traditional family and religion” reads more like a culture-war manifesto than a security strategy. It all but guarantees that left-leaning organizations — immigrant rights groups, environmental activists, racial justice nonprofits — will face scrutiny, while far-right militias skate by.

And enforcement has already begun. The Department of Homeland Security boasted just days after the memo that it had arrested “dozens of Antifa-aligned violent extremists” as part of NSPM-7’s rollout. Whether those arrests stand up in court is an open question. But the signal is clear: the administration is treating the memo as a green light, not a guideline.

Legal challenges will arise. Lawsuits are inevitable. But until courts weigh in, the executive branch has wide discretion to interpret NSPM-7 as it sees fit. That means the chilling effect is immediate, even before a single ruling is handed down. For dissenters, nonprofits, and donors, the threat is already real.

And that’s the trap: once the precedent is set, it won’t stop with the targets Trump has in his sights today.

---

Why It Matters: The Precedent Trap

The defenders of NSPM-7 will say this is about “keeping America safe.” They’ll point to Antifa, or a violent protest, or some fringe group online. But here’s the hard truth: once the government claims the right to brand dissent as terrorism, the target can change at will. Today it’s a left-wing protest. Tomorrow it could be a gun-rights rally, a teachers’ strike, or a church that challenges the administration. The memo doesn’t draw the line. It erases it.

That’s the precedent trap. Laws and executive memos don’t just vanish when the president who signed them leaves office. They sit there, waiting to be picked up by whoever comes next. Every new abuse becomes part of the “normal” toolbox. We’ve seen this before: the Patriot Act was supposed to be about al-Qaeda. Two decades later, it’s used to surveil Americans with almost no oversight. What started as “temporary” became permanent.

And let’s be blunt: this isn’t about violence. If it were, white supremacist militias would be at the top of the list. The January 6 insurrectionists would already be treated as a domestic terror network. Instead, NSPM-7 singles out “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Americanism,” and “anti-Christianity” as red flags. That’s not counterterrorism language. That’s culture-war code — a way to paint political opposition as criminal.

That’s why this matters. Not because of what it does to extremists, but because of what it does to everyone else. It chills protest. It scares donors. It makes ordinary people think twice about speaking, marching, or giving. And once fear takes root, democracy rots from the inside. NSPM-7 isn’t just a memo. It’s a warning shot aimed at every American who ever thought about raising their hand and saying, “This isn’t right.”

That’s why the fight can’t be left for later. NSPM-7 isn’t theoretical — it’s here now, and its reach is universal.

---

Conclusion & Call to Action

This isn’t just about Antifa. It isn’t just about leftists or protesters in the streets. It’s about power. NSPM-7 creates a set of tools that can — and will — be used on anyone. Once a government has the authority to label a domestic group as a terrorist organization, to monitor its donors like it’s chasing al-Qaeda, and to punish people before they’ve done anything illegal, there’s no natural limit. Today, it targets causes you may not like. Tomorrow it targets you.

That’s why this memo isn’t just another Trump headline. It’s the quiet rewriting of what it means to be a citizen. It turns the simple acts of a healthy democracy — giving, volunteering, marching, striking — into potential crimes. It puts every church, every union, every civic group, and every donor under a cloud of suspicion. It builds a system where the executive branch can decide who is a “terrorist” and who is “loyal” with no real checks.

History shows how quickly tools built for “security” become weapons for control. From COINTELPRO to the Patriot Act to authoritarian crackdowns abroad, the pattern is always the same. The only thing that stops it is public resistance before it becomes normalized. If we shrug this off, NSPM-7 becomes the new normal, and the next president, of any party, will inherit a blueprint for crushing dissent.

If you care about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, or simply the right to donate without fear, now is the time to act. Support watchdog groups. Demand congressional oversight. Share this story so it doesn’t stay buried. NSPM-7 isn’t just a memo. It’s a test of whether Americans will notice when their democracy is quietly rewritten, and whether they’ll fight to get it back.

Stay Informed. Stay Loud.

Subscribe to The Coffman Chronicle for no-BS political analysis, action guides, and daily truth bombs you won’t get from corporate media.

Bibliography:

• Arnold & Porter LLP. “Turning Powerful Post 9-11 Counterterrorism Tools Onto Domestic Policy Targets.” Enforcement Edge, September 26, 2025.

• “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence (NSPM-7).” The White House, September 25, 2025.

• “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Develops New Strategy to Counter Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” The White House, September 2025.

• “Memorandum on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence (NSPM-7).” The American Presidency Project (University of California, Santa Barbara), September 25, 2025.

• “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs].” Federation of American Scientists.

• “Presidential Memorandum on Political Violence Raises Questions Regarding Next Steps for Foundations and Other Nonprofits.” WilmerHale, September 2025.

• “Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization.” The White House, September 22, 2025.

• “Trump Signs Memorandum Targeting ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Amid Fears of Crackdown on the Left.” The Guardian, September 25, 2025.

• “ACLU Statement on the Trump Administration’s Memorandum Targeting Political Opponents.” ACLU, September 25, 2025.

• “DHS Is Fighting Back Against Antifa Violence.” Department of Homeland Security, September 26, 2025.

• “Trump Issues Memorandum Directing Law Enforcement to Target ‘Domestic Terrorism’ and Organized Political Violence by Nonprofits and Others.” Elias Law Group (client alert), September 26, 2025.

• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The Impact of Russia’s Foreign Agent Law.” Carnegie Endowment, July 18, 2019.

• Truthout. “Trump’s National Security Directive Declares War on Dissent.” Truthout, September 26, 2025.