NSPM-7: The Secret Memo Fueling 65-Nation Antifa Prosecutions Without Congress

For legal and regulatory professionals, NSPM-7 represents a seismic shift in how executive power can redefine national security law. Issued without notice or debate, this memorandum effectively creates a new class of domestic terrorism offenses based on ideology rather than conduct, setting a precedent that challenges core constitutional protections and the separation of powers. The lack of congressional authorization and the use of the IRS to probe political groups demand immediate scrutiny from a rule-of-law perspective.

A little-noticed presidential national security memorandum, NSPM-7, issued on September 25, 2025, has become the legal engine behind a growing wave of terrorism prosecutions against left-wing protesters in the United States. Unlike a statute, this memorandum was not passed by Congress; it is a unilateral executive directive that, for the first time, appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures based not on evidence of imminent violence but on political or ideological beliefs. This foundational document has now been deployed to reinterpret domestic anti-terrorism law, enabling the Justice Department to build counterterrorism task forces, the FBI to establish a dedicated NSPM-7 mission center, and even a joint effort with the IRS to investigate nonprofit organizations. The domestic machinery has already convicted activists and sent some to prison for decades, marking a dramatic shift in how the U.S. government pursues political dissent.

“

For legal and regulatory professionals, NSPM-7 represents a seismic shift in how executive power can redefine national security law.

Nearly a year later, the blueprint has been exported to the international stage. On July 16, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted a Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism in Washington, D.C., drawing representatives from more than 65 countries. Informally dubbed the “Antifa summit,” the gathering promoted the notion that antifa-aligned networks operate across borders with shared infrastructure, while Rubio—without providing supporting evidence—accused Iran and Cuba of bankrolling the movement. The White House proclaimed this the beginning of an “unprecedented global offensive” against “radical left terrorism,” effectively using the same unvetted NSPM-7 framework to encourage allied nations to adopt similar preemptive and ideological targeting.

The legal significance is profound. Presidential memoranda are lesser-known tools of executive power that can carry the same practical force as executive orders but often evade the same level of public and congressional scrutiny. NSPM-7 purports to expand the definition of terrorism to encompass political activities that the administration deems threatening, overriding the traditional requirement of imminent violence or concrete plans. This raises serious constitutional questions under the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and assembly, as well as under the separation of powers, since Congress never authorized such a broad domestic security mandate. Moreover, the memorandum’s domestic use to target protesters—and now to galvanize international cooperation—sets a precedent that could be applied to any ideology a future administration disfavors.