In response to a series of politically motivated assassinations, riots, and acts of domestic terrorism, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, entitled Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence (“NSPM-7”), on September 25, 2025. The Executive Order outlines a sweeping new federal strategy that targets what the administration describes as a growing network of coordinated domestic extremists especially those affiliated with self-described “anti-fascist” movements. These groups, the memorandum claims, are promoting violence, silencing dissent, and undermining democratic institutions. In reality, this Executive Order marks a turning point in how the government approaches political dissent in America, reshaping the boundaries of civil liberties and free speech under the banner of national security.
According to the administration, these acts are not isolated but part of a broader ideological campaign involving doxxing, intimidation, and targeted violence. NSPM-7, the administration’s Countering Domestic Terrorism policy, directs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”) and its local branches to lead a nationwide investigation. This includes probing not just individuals involved in violent acts but also organizations, nonprofits, financial backers, and even Americans with ties to foreign entities. It orders federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Treasury, and the IRS to coordinate investigations and criminal prosecutions, treating political discourse as a matter of national security.
The Attorney General is instructed to prosecute offenses to the fullest extent of the law and to consider formally designating domestic organizations as terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the IRS is charged with identifying tax-exempt organizations suspected of indirectly financing political violence. The directive empowers the federal government to surveil, interrogate, and prosecute individuals not just for violent conduct but for ideological associations that the administration believes contribute to extremism.
What makes NSPM-7 extraordinary is not just its overly extended breadth but its domestic focus. It invokes the architecture of post-9/11 counterterrorism to address political movements within the United States and defines terrorism as any rhetoric stemming from ideologies perceived as “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” without any legal or empirical backing. This executive action cannot be distinguished from the broader legal and historical context that has enabled executive power to expand steadily over the past two decades.
The Post-9/11 Legal Framework: Laying the Groundwork
The federal government’s expanded role in national security began with the Patriot Act, passed just weeks after the September 11 attacks and later reauthorized in 2006. Introduced as a necessary measure to prevent future terrorist attacks, the Act allowed law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information and apply powerful investigative tools that had previously been reserved for organized crime and drug enforcement. These included roving wiretaps, delayed notification search warrants, expanded surveillance of internet communications, and easier access to business records.
President George W. Bush emphasized that the Patriot Act would “safeguard civil liberties” while enhancing national security. However, it also created a new surveillance infrastructure with ambiguous powers, allowing for wide interpretations of what constituted terrorism and enabling monitoring of both foreign and domestic actors with minimal judicial oversight.
Although initially justified by foreign threats, the Patriot Act helped normalize domestic surveillance in the name of national defense. This normalization of power transfer to the executive branch laid the legal and political foundation for more controversial programs as of recent.
Trump’s Expansion of Emergency Powers
During his first term, President Trump dramatically expanded the use of emergency powers and executive authority, particularly in areas where national security was invoked. He repeatedly relied on the National Emergencies Act of 1976, a law originally designed to curb presidential overreach by requiring regular congressional review and clear statutory justification for any ongoing emergency declarations. In practice, however, the law provided the executive with a flexible and under-checked framework to act unilaterally.
Emergency declarations became a governing tool rather than a response to extraordinary threats. For instance, Trump’s controversial border wall funding initiative relied on a national emergency declaration to redirect military funds, bypassing congressional refusal to appropriate money for the project. While critics saw this as a clear end-run around the legislative branch, legal constraints proved ineffective as courts were hesitant to overturn the declaration outright.
One of the most pivotal Supreme Court decisions during Trump’s first term was Trump v. Hawaii (2018). At issue was the President’s authority to impose what was widely described as a “Muslim travel ban,” a series of executive orders restricting entry into the United States by nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries. Though challengers argued the policy was motivated by religious animus and violated the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court upheld it.
The Court held that the President had broad statutory authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of noncitizens whenever he deemed their entry detrimental to national interests. More significantly, the Court emphasized that the executive’s evaluation of national security threats is entitled to “appropriate weight,” and that courts may not second-guess the President’s predictive judgments in matters of foreign affairs and national defense.
In doing so, the Court in Trump v. Hawaii showcased its reluctance to interfere when the executive invokes national security, even at the potential cost of individual constitutional protections. It reaffirmed a judicial posture that has become increasingly permissive of broad executive action, particularly when security interests are cited.
Together with the Patriot Act and emergency declarations, Trump v. Hawaii solidified a legal culture of executive dominance in national security affairs, encouraging future administrations to frame controversial or expansive policies, whether foreign or domestic, as security measures beyond the judiciary’s reach. NSPM-7 fits squarely into this trajectory, exploiting the judicial deference established during Trump’s first term. This unprecedented scope of government surveillance raises profound questions about privacy rights and the limits of executive power.
From Youngstown to Hamdi: A Shift in Deference
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) offers an early and powerful warning about executive overreach. In that case, President Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills during a labor dispute, claiming national security. The Court rejected this move, asserting that the President had acted without congressional approval. Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion laid out a foundational framework still used today. He explained that the President’s power is at its peak when acting with Congress, more uncertain when Congress is silent, and at its lowest ebb when the President acts against the expressed will of Congress.
However, following 9/11, this caution began to erode. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court upheld the executive’s authority to detain a U.S. citizen without trial, as long as it was tied to a congressionally approved use of military force. Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan, was designated an “enemy combatant” and held without charges. Although the Court required some due process, including notice and a chance to contest the detention, it accepted hearsay evidence and allowed courts to presume the government’s claims were correct. This established a new norm of deference toward the executive’s national security decisions, even when applied to American citizens.
Hamdi as the Legal Foundation for NSPM-7
Hamdi legitimized the executive’s ability to act against individuals based on ideological affiliation and suspicion, so long as a war or emergency justification could be inferred. This precedent helped create the legal conditions for NSPM-7, which similarly justifies broad investigations for the purpose of countering domestic terrorism.
What differs is that NSPM-7 applies this authority inward, targeting domestic groups and citizens without any clear authorization from Congress, such as the AUMF provided in Hamdi. Instead, it falls into what Justice Jackson called the “zone of twilight” or perhaps even the “lowest ebb” of presidential power where Congress has neither acted nor explicitly approved.
Nonetheless, because of precedents like Hamdi, the government may argue that such actions are a logical extension of national security doctrine, rather than a violation of constitutional limits.
Boumediene v. Bush: A Reassertion of Judicial Oversight
The next major turning point came in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), where the Supreme Court addressed whether foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay could be denied the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts. The Court ruled they could not, striking down a provision of the Military Commissions Act as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
Even though the detainees were noncitizens held outside U.S. sovereign territory, the Court reasoned that U.S. control over Guantanamo meant constitutional protections still applied. It emphasized the importance of judicial review and warned against creating legal black holes where the executive could operate without accountability.
Boumediene also echoed the balancing framework from Matthews v. Eldridge, considering the liberty interest of the detainee, the risk of error, and the government’s security concerns. The Court found that procedures like the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were inadequate and that habeas corpus must allow courts to assess the sufficiency of the government’s evidence and consider exculpatory information.
Boumediene stands as a powerful counterpoint to NSPM-7. NSPM-7 assigns surveillance and enforcement authority to executive agencies with little to no judicial involvement, applying tools of counterterrorism to political organizations and citizens based on ideology, not just action.
The Court in Boumediene rejected the idea that the government could use geography or labels to sidestep constitutional protections. Similarly, NSPM-7 should not be permitted to bypass due process by redefining political opposition as a security threat. If the government can preemptively target citizens based on ideological suspicion and organizational affiliation, then the right to due process may become conditional, subject to executive interpretation. The Executive Order blurs the traditional line between First Amendment and national security, treating speech and association as potential precursors to terrorism.
Breaking Point
NSPM-7 represents a dramatic and possibly dangerous escalation in the consolidation of executive power. It builds on decades of post-9/11 legal development, from the Patriot Act to Hamdi to Boumediene, but it breaks from them in one respect: it turns the national security state inward, targeting citizens based not on their actions but their ideas.
At its core, NSPM-7 challenges the separation of powers. It assumes investigative, prosecutorial, and interpretive authority within the executive branch, redefining political dissent as terrorism and subordinating civil liberties to an unbounded conception of national security. History shows that such expansions rarely revert and will only become more pervasive. They demand resistance through the vigilant defense of constitutional rights.
The danger is not only in what NSPM-7 permits today but in what it normalizes for the future. If left unchecked, Executive Order NSPM-7 risks normalizing government surveillance and privacy rights intrusions, eroding constitutional freedoms, and redefining political dissent in America. This Countering Domestic Terrorism policy reflects the growing tension between the First Amendment and national security, and it demands vigilant defense of civil liberties and free speech.”
Please subscribe to this blog to receive in-depth legal analysis of emerging constitutional threats, Supreme Court developments, and executive power controversies.
Sources: