Donald Trump’s crusade against what he calls “domestic terrorism” has less to do with national
security than with rewriting the definition of dissent itself. In a country where the Constitution enshrines the right to protest, assemble, and challenge the powerful, Trump’s September 2025
orders—his executive declaration naming Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization” and the subsequent presidential memorandum Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence—amount
to a direct assault on those very freedoms. They are not anti-terror directives; they are manifestos of political retribution.
In both language and logic, Trump’s domestic terror policy substitutes paranoia for principle. The orders define terrorism not as violence but as ideological nonconformity—expressions of
“anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, or anti-capitalism.” Such phrasing collapses the boundary between criminal conduct and political belief, inviting federal agencies to treat criticism as
conspiracy and activism as extremism. The White House has effectively deputized law enforcement to police thought, telling the FBI and the IRS to “disrupt” activities of nonprofits, charities,
and individuals deemed sympathetic to movements of dissent. The administration’s targets are not bombmakers or insurrectionists—they are academics, civil rights groups, and journalists. And yet,
by calling them “radical left extremists,” the president cloaks vengeance in the language of security.
This perversion of the counterterror paradigm is no accident. Trump’s order against Antifa—a decentralized network with no command structure, finances, or membership—is legally meaningless; there
is no statutory mechanism for designating a domestic group as a terrorist organization. The point was never legal—it was symbolic. By invoking “terror,” Trump repurposed the moral weight of
9/11-era counterterrorism to frame his political opponents as enemies of the state. The designation, as congressional Democrats and national security lawyers warned, functions as an open license
for surveillance, asset seizures, and prosecutions on the thinnest of ideological grounds.
Trump’s domestic terrorism agenda thus represents a dangerous convergence of populist resentment and authoritarian technique. The memo’s sweeping categories—opposition to “traditional American
values,” or belief in “anti-capitalist ideologies”—reveal a government not fighting extremism but constructing one. It is as though the state, anxious about losing moral authority, now seeks to
criminalize its critics. This is what makes NSPM‑7 so chilling: It transforms dissent into pathology and turns federal security powers inward, weaponizing fear for political consolidation.
The practical consequences are already visible. Law enforcement agencies have used the new framework to justify investigations into campus groups, social justice organizations, and media
collectives accused of “promoting hostility” toward law enforcement. Civil society organizations are facing audits, donors are withdrawing support, and watchdogs warn of a chilling effect on
political expression. Prosecutors have even tested “terrorism enhancement” charges in cases involving minor property damage at immigration protests—charges that would have been unthinkable before
Trump’s shift in doctrine.
Beyond its domestic implications, the policy marks a profound moral inversion. The administration that once downplayed white nationalist violence now wields the specter of leftist extremism to
project order and strength. But this is the oldest authoritarian trick: redefine chaos as dissent, and dissent as terror. By expanding “terrorism” to encompass ideas, Trump is not defending
America’s democracy—he is reconfiguring it into an apparatus of ideological discipline.
The most dangerous consequence of this campaign is not the surveillance it legalizes, but the silence it produces. When activism itself becomes suspect, the cost of speaking rises, and the shared
vocabulary of freedom erodes. America, ever haunted by its promise of liberty, now finds itself in a paradox of its own making: a democracy defending itself from its citizens. In repurposing the
language of counterterrorism to persecute critics, Trump has given the republic a darker mirror. It’s not the terrorists who threaten the nation—it’s the terror of power unbound.
Kommentar schreiben