I recorded an emergency pod to explain this story. Fair warning: it’s likely to be the scariest thing you hear today. And, if you’re not alarmed, you’re not paying attention.
Last week, we learned that AG Pam Bondi had issued an 8-page memo that orders the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”1
Attention needs to be paid, because the details are alarming, even in the Age of Trump.
Bondi’s memo links domestic terrorism to activity that “paints legitimate government authority and traditional, conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist,’” and connects this to “a recent string of political violence,” including the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
It then outlines plans to punish such offenses “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
The new orders create a massive dragnet that focuses on Antifa but Bondi draws an extraordinarily wide circle of groups and individuals who challenge MAGA. It was first reported by Ken Klippenstein, but has not yet received a fraction of the coverage it deserves.
Bondi’s memo says it targets domestic terrorism. But the focus is exhaustively — almost singularly — on ideology. The memo’s language essentially builds a composite culture war enemy. Although the directive mentions the statutory definition requiring acts dangerous to human life, it directs federal law enforcement to investigate individuals whose “animating principle is adherence” to several viewpoints.
And the “extreme viewpoints” and ideological frameworks the Attorney General instructs federal law enforcement to prioritize include? (These are direct quotes)
• Opposition to law and immigration enforcement…
• Extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders…
• Adherence to radical gender ideology…
• Anti-Americanism…
• Anti-capitalism…
• Anti-Christianity…
• Support for the overthrow of the United States Government…
• Hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality,,,
To which the proper reaction is WTAF? How is an FBI agent supposed to measure hostility towards traditional views on family? And what does that even mean? Are they monitoring your social media, who you donate to? Who you are sleeping with? The criteria are so vague, they invite subjective interpretation and mission creep.
Critics are right when they warn that this will end up targeting views that are constitutionally protected. And that may be the whole point.
Here’s a quick summary:
We are very definitely in clowns-with-flamethrowers territory here, because Bondi is serious and she’s bringing in the heavy hitters and provides them with legal hammers. Writes Bondi: “The recent attacks fueled by these agendas and ideological frameworks require a robust response. The JTTFs [Joint Terrorism Task Forces] shall prioritize the investigation of such conduct.”2
Not surprisingly, Bondi’s memo focuses almost exclusively on the left.
But the data says something else entirely.
A DOJ-funded study, that showed that far-right attacks from white supremacists outpace all other forms of domestic violence, was deleted from the department’s website in September, just before the directive came out.
So, the administration effectively purged evidence that contradicted the very threat profile they were building this entire security apparatus around.
It reinforces the idea that this is less about the biggest documented threat and more about constructing a certain type of enemy that fits with their political grievances.
So groups or individuals who advocate for immigration reform, or trans rights, or are opposed to capitalism can now be slotted into this internal network mapping apparatus just based on their beliefs.
The chief legal counsel of Whistleblower Aid nails this, when he says “the memo expressly seeks to redefine political dissent against the president as domestic terrorism.”
Besides the threats of possible prosecution, the chilling effect alone is ominous.
The memo, earlier reported by Reuters and Bloomberg, also suggested the Trump administration was continuing to look for ways to revoke the tax-exempt status of leftwing groups, a move that could cripple their philanthropic efforts. After the killing of Charlie Kirk, the department sought to look for ways to investigate the Open Society Foundations, a major funder of liberal causes.
“Federal law enforcement and federal prosecutors should consider any applicable tax crimes in cases in which extremist groups are suspected of defrauding the Internal Revenue Service. As it receives referrals for violations of tax obligations, the [justice department] should investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute those responsible,” the memo says.
You can read more about it here, here, here, and here.
But this is what I try to emphasize in today’s podcast: You don’t need to get a conviction, or even actually file a case to chill dissent.
If you scare away donors by suggesting the groups are under investigation for tax fraud or, terrorism. You cripple the organizations whether or not any charges are ever even filed.
Meanwhile,“US shows signs of ‘rapid authoritarian shift”
The U.S. is showing signs of undergoing a “rapid authoritarian shift” as civic freedomsin the country decline following President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, a group that tracks the status of such liberties and the threats they face around the world is warning.
CIVICUS, an international network of civil society groups that advocates for stronger civil liberties, downgraded its assessment of U.S. civic freedoms from “narrowed” to “obstructed” in a new report on Tuesday, months after it added the country to a global human rights watchlist earlier this year.
“Long-established democracies are showing signs of rapid authoritarian shift, marked by weakened rule of law and growing constraints on independent civil society. Argentina and the USA exemplified this trend,” the report said.
Wednesday dogs
Auggie and Eli are enjoying a snow day. (We got another three inches last night.)
First, here’s part of the expansive definition of “domestic terrorism”:
General Definition (Statutory): In general terms, Bondi’s memorandum relies on the legal definition of domestic terrorism (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)), which is criminal conduct occurring primarily inside the United States territory that involves acts dangerous to human life and appears intended to intimidate a civilian population; influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; or affect government conduct by means of mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
From the memo:
Acts of domestic terrorism are priority matters for federal law enforcement and will be zealously investigated and prosecuted. Such acts may include organized rioting, looting, doxing, and swatting; and conspiracies to impede or assault law enforcement, destroy property, or engage in violent civil disorder….
Particularly dangerous are those acts committed by violent extremist groups that threaten both citizens’ safety and our country’s ability to self-govern. These domestic terrorists use violence or the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as political assassinations.
