Trump’s Enemies List Meets Media Blackout
Why the NSPM-7 fueled FBI blacklist isn’t considered news
Readers here know about the FBI’s new enemies list, a product of Trump’s NSPM-7 policy that commenced the most aggressive program of domestic spying since 9/11. Readers of the New York Times and the Washington Post? Not so much.
In September, Donald Trump signed the national security directive giving marching orders to some 250,000 federal law enforcement officers and intelligence analysts to target “anti-American” activity (as they define it). Then last week, the Justice Department directed the FBI to compile a list of Americans whose activities “may constitute domestic terrorism,” according to a memo I published this weekend. The administration also released last week its “national security strategy” that prioritizes defense of the “homeland” over every other challenge facing America.
The Justice Department memo I published has elicited outrage across the political spectrum, but hardly any major news outlet can bother to even write about it and how law enforcement is now targeting speech and the basic activities that constitute American civic life. This is an object lesson in everything that’s wrong with corporate media.
It’s particularly incredible for a story so creepy it seemed to write itself: a blacklist, a “cash reward system” for public “cooperators,” and a supercharged FBI tip line where anyone and everyone can tattle on their neighbors for “anti-American” thoughts and activities.
One of the only media outlets that even wrote about the Justice Department order, Reuters, failed to mention some of the most alarming developments contained within it, instead focusing on what could be the only boring part of the entire document — tax law and the IRS. (Not kidding!)
Reuters’ headline — “Bondi orders US law enforcement to investigate ‘extremist groups” — made the story indistinguishable from any number of other Trump administration actions relating to terrorism.
For all anyone would know reading this headline, it was just another story about Trump’s designation of “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization” months ago (and now, of course, that designation is the tip of the iceberg that allows law enforcement to treat anti-government activity as terrorism).
Reuters starts its story with a bullet point summary that (incorrectly) makes it sound like Pam Bondi’s order only applies to “Antifa.” In actuality, the memo cites “anti-American sentiment” in general as the animating principle of the new domestic dragnet. Other targets include those motivated by “opposition to law and immigration enforcement,” which could describe half the country, according to recent polling
And since Reuters adheres to the media practice of refusing to publish the actual document it’s quoting from, any news consumer would be none the wiser.
If you think I’m exaggerating, take a look at how the Reuters story begins:
Again, literally every one of these bullet points describes what the Trump administration has been doing for months, not what’s new or news. But it gets worse. Reuters continues:
There it is: “reviewed by Reuters.” In other words, we won’t be letting you see this memo; but that’s OK because we in our wisdom have reviewed it to decide which details you’re allowed to know. I call this Trust Us Journalism, where some editor (probably in DC or New York) unilaterally decides what the public interest is. They of course always get this wrong, not for any nefarious reason necessarily but because elite-educated urban professionals living in the most expensive places in the country aren’t the best judge of what regular people want to know about.
Wow, tax law — I’m at the edge of my seat!
Reuters, thanks to its all-knowing “review,” goes on to selectively quote from the document without any sort of explanation about what it means and why it matters. The article also makes zero mention whatsoever of the memo’s authorizing a “cash fund” for Americans to tattle on their neighbors!
The only other mainstream media outlet to cover this, The Guardian, did even worse. The Guardian’s headline reads: “Pam Bondi tells law enforcement agencies to investigate antifa groups for ‘tax crimes.’”
Not having gone to journalism school myself, I guess I missed the lesson on how compelling tax law is. But it gets worse, for NSPM-7 and its broad reordering of the sprawling domestic spy machine is not addressed.
The Guardian subheadline goes on: “Move is part of Trump’s broader crackdown on leftwing groups, including designation of antifa as ‘domestic terrorism group.’”
But these orders are not just about Antifa, and casting them as only applying to this marginal group rather than to the entire public is both dead wrong and a surefire way to make people think that what Trump is doing won’t affect them directly. This is the same error that led to NSPM-7 not getting covered in this first place, with outlets like even CSPAN confusing it with Trump’s Antifa designation. A common refrain from the major media know-it-alls is that Antifa doesn’t exist, so nothing will happen. But the Trump administration has its own definition of Antifa, using the label to expand to other groups that they are also targeting.
And besides, isn’t it the public’s job to decide if they consider this domestic crackdown a threat? Unlike, say, Reuters editors, they aren’t the ones with fancy legal departments to defend them if they become a target of the NSPM-7 machine. This ‘We review, you read’ style of journalism marginalizes the public from participating in their own governance. And nowhere is it worse than in the secretive world of national security, where not publishing documents is basically a reflex.
If the Mamdani phenomenon taught us anything, it’s that people regardless of age and income want to be involved in government, especially as it relates to their daily lives.
In fairness to Reuters and The Guardian, at least they wrote about the Justice Department order at all (even if they botched the story). With the exception of the subscription legal service Bloomberg Law, not a single other mainstream publication has mentioned the directive — including on cable news.
For months I’ve wondered why hair-raising developments around Trump’s NSPM-7 haven’t generated any mainstream media interest. We are deluged with a flood of stories practically every time someone from Trump and co. farts, but we get almost nothing about their war on American “terrorism” replacing the longstanding focus on groups like ISIS — which seems like a big story!
Frustrating as this all is, it does affirm to me that what I’m doing here matters. So I’ll keep giving you the leaked documents and explaining what the they mean so you can make your own decisions (even if they diverge from mine!). I hope you’ll join me in this quest by subscribing.
— Edited by William M. Arkin
I'm probably on that list. I am a vocal antagonist again this administration. I'm not easy to lie to and I ask too many questions. I love going to the shooting range, value strong pro democratic elections and disageee vehemently with the citizen's united decision, as corporations are not people. Mmm oh, I also believe in a strong separation of church and state, as did the Founders. I think that checks all of their "terrorist" boxes.
Thanks for this important information and context. You are doing an important public service by revealing this sleazy memo and the complicity of the mainstream media.