Trump’s NSPM-7 Alarms Law Firms While Congress Is Silent
Domestic terror watchlist to double, sources say
Washington’s biggest law firms are issuing memoranda on the implications of NSPM-7, Trump’s new national security directive, yet virtually no one in Congress has bothered to say a thing. What little the mainstream media have said about NSPM-7 has so far been wrong, often downplaying it.
Sources tell me that NSPM-7 will likely cause the FBI’s domestic terrorism watchlist, currently at about 5,000 U.S. citizens, to double in the coming months.
Last Thursday, President Donald Trump issued National Security
Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism
and Organized Political Violence.” It creates a national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and dismantle organized political violence and domestic terrorism, identifying indicators of a potential domestic terrorist as the expression of “anti-Christian” or “anti-capitalism” or “anti-American” views. NSPM-7 directs the federal government to disrupt groups “before” they result in violent political acts. In other words, pre-crime.
Law firms like Arnold & Porter, WilmerHale, Caplin & Drysdale, Akin Gump, and Elias Law Group swiftly responded to NSPM-7 by issuing guidances explaining the implications for non-profits and other organizations that are among their clientele.
To date though, almost no members of Congress have commented on NSPM-7. I reached out to the following congressional leaders for a statement, but received nothing:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (Minority Leader)
Sen. Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence, ranking member)
Sen. Gary Peters (Senate Homeland, ranking member)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (Minority Leader)
Rep. Jim Himes (House Intelligence, ranking member)
Rep. Jamie Raskin (House Judiciary, ranking member)
Rep. Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the Homeland Affairs Committee, responded with the following statement:
“Just like with Trump’s reckless — and incorrect — antifa designation, his domestic terrorism memorandum serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone - or any group - they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist.”
But the national security directive is far more consequential, as I recently explained, in that it directs the countrywide network of Joint Terrorism Task Forces to characterize, surveil, and conduct actions to thwart organizations and individuals espousing the domestic terrorism indicators described above (“anti-Christian,” “anti-capitalism” and “anti-American” rhetoric).
Legal heavyweights from Akin Gump to WilmerHale warn that NSPM-7 is not mere rhetorical theater — it presents real danger for tax exempt organizations.
(The directive says that the Secretary of the Treasury should make available ‘all resources’ “to identify and disrupt financial networks that fund domestic terrorism and political violence”; and that the Secretary “shall provide guidance for financial institutions to file Suspicious Activity Reports and investigate indicia [indicators] of illicit funding streams to ensure such activity is rooted out at the source and referred for law enforcement action…”)
Arnold & Porter, a heavyweight in Washington’s legal and policy circles, says “the stakes are high,” cautioning that NSPM-7 signals Justice Department plans to target tax-exempt organizations and their funders for criminal investigations based on actions historically protected by the First Amendment.
“The Presidential Memorandum makes clear that DOJ intends to target tax-exempt organizations and their funders for investigation and potential criminal prosecution,” the legal minds at the law firm say.
“Even the ‘indirect’ financing of ‘political violence’” could provoke liability, they warn.
Their analysis further notes that the memo doesn’t just threaten fringe actors: it stretches to organizations seen as supporting “progressive causes,” suggesting the scope could well include mainstream nonprofit advocacy. This runs contrary to the Trump administration’s framing of the crackdown as merely focused on extremist or radical elements, the law firm concludes
WilmerHale, a DC legal powerhouse, offers a similar reading. Their guidance warns that NSPM-7 may cause the federal government to pursue IRS investigations of nonprofit groups, assess terrorism designations, block nonprofit assets, and even target individual officers and employees.
“Employees and officers … are possible subjects of Justice Department and other investigations,” the law firm’s alert states.
Caplin & Drysdale, known for its political law practice, flagged the revival of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as especially significant, saying that with NSPM-7, Trump had brought FARA “back from the dead.” They call NSPM-7 a signal that the firm’s clients must no longer treat FARA enforcement as a low priority. (FARA requires registration and disclosure of individuals who act at the behest of foreign entities — at the intersection of political speech and foreign influence.) They also emphasize that NSPM-7’s focus is heavier on nonprofits and civil society than on for-profits.
Akin Gump, a leading international law firm with more than 900 lawyers, offers a brief summary of the practical effects of NSPM-7:
“Directs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force to investigate, prosecute, and dismantle networks, organizations, and funding streams behind domestic terrorism and organized political violence. Orders federal law enforcement and financial regulators to prioritize identifying, disrupting, and prosecuting those involved, including funders, tax-exempt entities, and foreign-linked actors, and allows the Attorney General to recommend formal designation of domestic terrorism organizations.”
Elias Law Group, which describes itself as “the nation’s go-to law firm to fight back against voter suppression and election subversion,” warns that under NSPM-7, the government may interrogate individuals about “financial sponsorship” of protests or political activity. NSPM-7, the firm goes on to warn, “sends a troubling signal” that organizations opposing the administration may face investigations, punitive measures, or revocations of tax status.
“At a minimum, such politically motivated investigations would bog down targeted organizations with legal costs and compliance headaches all while detracting from their missions,” Elias concludes.
At root, NSPM-7 is not just about thwarting violent actors — it’s about chilling free speech and association. The directive empowers federal task forces to pursue not only organizations deemed in “support” of violence, but also funders, officers, employees, and indirect financial supporters, which means donors. Under the framework, even speech or advocacy currently considered protected could be swept into criminal exposure.
Maybe, someday, eventually, Congress will take notice of the most important change in the expansion of government power since the PATRIOT Act.
Correction: A previous version of this post listed Rep. Stephen Lynch as Acting Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee. Lynch held the position until August, when Rep. Robert Garcia was sworn in as ranking member.
— Edited by William M. Arkin
Be nice if they were honest and used this to classify AIPAC as the foreign representing entity that they are; not holding my breath.
Funny how many Democrats are shocked, SHOCKED! to find out that censorship could be turned on them.
I guess they thought they'd always be in charge of the censorship. I remember when people called me a nut case when I pointed out that Barack Obama prosecuted more journalists under the Espionage Act than every president before him combined.
"What do you think is going to happen when the Republicans are in charge?" I would say.
This. This is what fucking happens, you dumb fucks.