What is NSPM-7 and why it matters

A couple of weeks ago, while members of CIFRS were - perhaps not coincidentally - attending the annual Canadian Network for Research on Security, Extremism and Society (CANSES) meeting in Halifax, the United States government issued a new National Security Directive – NSPM-7 - titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” Mistakenly reported by many outlets as an executive order, this national security directive has some pretty significant implications that you need to know about.

Already know about NSPM-7 and want to read about how this could impact CIFRS and the people who engage with us? Jump to that section.

---

So, what is an NSPM if not an executive order?

An Executive Order and a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) are both official directives issued by the President of the United States, but they serve different purposes and follow different procedures. Executive Orders are formal, legally binding instructions that direct the operations of federal agencies and must be published in the Federal Register. They are often used to implement laws or manage government functions and are numbered for public record. In contrast, NSPMs are used specifically for matters related to national security and foreign policy. They may not be publicly released, depending on their sensitivity, and are generally less formal in structure. While both carry authority within the executive branch, Executive Orders are broader in scope and visibility, whereas NSPMs are more targeted and often confidential.

A product of the post WWII era, National Security Directives (or NSPMs as they are called by the Trump administration) were made possible by the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, and have often been secretive in nature (e.g., several classified orders signed by George W. Bush after 9/11 or the 1980 Jimmy Carter Top Secret Presidential Directive 59 (“PD-59”) that directed US nuclear war policy). Their scope is exceptionally broad and can, among other things, address foreign relations with specific countries, outline military strategy, establish frameworks for cyber operations, set policy on arms transfers, and tackle emerging transnational threats like bio-defense and research security.

So why should you care about this specific NSPM?

Good question. NSPM-7 carries the title “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence”, and comes on the heels of President Trump’s September 22, 2025 announcement in which he designated “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. NSPM-7 is the document that lays out both what is meant by domestic terrorism in the context of his previous announcement, as well as by which methods the US apparatus should work to police these new “terrorists”. In this directive, the president directs the FBI, Justice Department, and national security agencies including the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to implement a national strategy focused on identifying and disrupting individuals and organizations suspected of promoting political violence. This includes reorienting the existing network of agencies to concentrate on what the Trump administration defines as “leftist” political violence.

NSPM-7 defines Political Violence in this way:

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.

This directive authorizes action not only against groups, but also against individuals and entities even before any violent acts occur[1]. In effect, NSPM-7 promotes a pre-emptive approach to enforcement, targeting what it describes as the potential for political violence before it materializes.

---

Who are the actors of this political violence? Don’t worry, NSPM-7 has an answer for you.

The short version is as follows. These groups, individuals, and “entities” can be identified by any of the following indicators of violence:

• anti-Americanism,

• anti-capitalism,

• anti-Christianity,

• support for the overthrow of the United States government - (special note: this does not include Jan 6),

• extremism on migration,

• extremism on race,

• extremism on gender

• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,

• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and

• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.

Terms used (including extremism, hostility, and the context of anti-) are not defined at any time in NSPM-7, the White House Fact Sheet on this document, or any other communications from the administration. This is likely a strategic move to be able to leverage these words and their implications in whichever way is most beneficial for their political goals at any time.

If you think this is an exaggeration, here is the text directly from NSPM-7.

“There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.”  These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution.  This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties.  Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.  As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations.  For example, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin engraved the bullets used in the murder with so-called “anti-fascist” rhetoric.”

Basically, if you engage with any of these areas and someone within the US state apparatus feels like it, you get on the list, which (importantly) now includes a kind of pre-crime prevention that allows for action to be taken on individuals who have yet to commit a crime (see again the endnote).

---

So why does this matter for CIFRS and the people who engage with us?

First and foremost, it does not require particularly deep analysis to understand that among the leaders, fellows, and affiliates in CIFRS we might (rightfully) be seen to fall into each of the discrete categories listed in the order. So, while we are not anti-American as an organization (some of our executive leadership and close colleagues are American), in a world where criticism of the United States and their government is interpreted as anti-American, our critiques of the impacts of United States politics on Canada might be construed in this way. Same with our positions on gender “traditionalism,” racial positioning by colonial governments, infiltration of religious doctrine into policy and legislation, and many other items. Our work is not and never has been terroristic, but we hope you are beginning to see how that likely doesn’t matter. In a situation where definitions are so broad, application is so wide and loose, and persecution or action can take place before folks have done anything wrong or illegal, WE ARE IN DANGER.

Ralph in Danger meme. Screen capture from https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2089903-ralph-in-danger-im-in-danger - accessed October 8, 2025.

Canadians doing work along the same lines as CIFRS have already been told to be careful. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has issued an Advisory on Travel to the United States that cautions trans members, “…those whose research could be seen as being at odds with the position of the current U.S. administration,” and those from countries with diplomatic tensions with the US. Other Canadian researchers and activists have been advised by credible contacts within the American establishment that they should no longer travel to the United States. This likely means that some names of our colleagues are already “on a list” which could result in them being detained and/or having items confiscated at the border should they try to cross into the US (this has already occurred for other foreign researchers, including a French scientist). Some reports estimate that the FBI terror watchlist in the US could double due to Trump’s NSPM-7, and it is likely that other governments will may follow. Academics, researchers, and anyone who champions free speech is ultimately in danger if the Canadian government follows the US lead and classifies actors that challenge neo-liberal, capitalist, and elite authority as domestic terrorists.

---

Statements of fact from the CIFRS team

We will close this post with a few statements of fact. We do this because we think that it is important to make unequivocal statements given the uncertainty that is creeping around us on all sides – especially from below.

1. CIFRS is committed to critical research on, evaluation of, and exposing the far-right in Canada, including its ideological positions, motivations, and desires.

2. CIFRS believes in and will defend an individual’s right to free expression and academic freedom.

3. CIFRS is not, and will never be, a terrorist organization. To categorize this organization that way would simply be false.

4. No individual currently associated with CIFRS is a terrorist.

   
   

The US administration has defined “antifa” – which we know to simply mean anti-fascist – with such a broad brush that their motivation is painfully obvious. They seek to silence all difference or dissent. What a fascist thing to do…

---

[1] You can learn more about this from this article, as well as read it directly in the second bullet point on this White house Fact Sheet on NSPM-7.

Written by Luc Cousineau on beahlf of the CIFRS Founders and the entire CIFRS team.