By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Pam Bondi has acknowledged the existence of a secret list of domestic terrorist organizations, confirming that “antifa is part of that.” This database, compiled under President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, targets groups espousing ideologies defined as anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, antifascism, and radical gender ideologies. Despite repeated requests, the Justice Department has refused to provide details about the list or confirm whether individuals on it could face extrajudicial actions. This revelation has raised concerns among lawmakers about the potential for the government to weaponize national security designations against those who disagree with the administration.
Read the original article here
Attorney General Pam Bondi has, for the first time, confirmed the existence of a covert list of domestic terrorist organizations. This significant admission came to light during a House Judiciary Committee hearing when Representative Mary Gay Scanlon directly questioned Bondi about the compilation of such a list. Bondi explicitly stated that Antifa is included within this designation, though she declined to provide any further specifics regarding the database being assembled under President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The fact that the Justice Department had previously been unwilling to acknowledge the list’s existence, despite numerous inquiries, makes Bondi’s confirmation all the more noteworthy.
The very nature of NSPM-7, as described, raises serious concerns because it appears to blur the lines between constitutionally protected activities, such as free speech and political activism, and what it defines as “domestic terrorism.” This definition, notably, lacks a clear basis in existing U.S. law. The memorandum purportedly targets individuals and groups who express views that the administration categorizes as anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-fascism, and opposition to “radical gender ideologies.” Furthermore, it extends to those exhibiting “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views.” This broad and subjective framing immediately raises questions about who is being targeted and on what grounds.
The implications of this list are far-reaching, especially when considering the definitions used. Many individuals might find themselves inadvertently falling under these broad categories simply for expressing critical opinions about American policy, economic systems, or societal norms. For instance, holding critical views on American foreign policy, the influence of money in politics, or questioning established religious doctrines could now be interpreted as aligning with the criteria for inclusion. Similarly, advocating for gender equality or expressing strong opposition to fascism could place individuals under scrutiny. The phrase “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” is particularly vague and open to interpretation, potentially encompassing anyone who challenges the status quo or holds dissenting opinions.
The timing of this revelation, coupled with other observed governmental actions, fuels further speculation and concern. The development of extensive detention centers across the country, alongside public statements from the President indicating a focus on “homegrown” threats, creates a worrying narrative. The ease with which the criteria for inclusion on this list can be interpreted to encompass a wide range of political and social dissent suggests that the focus may not be on genuine threats but rather on ideological opposition. This raises the specter of a political “enemies list” disguised as a national security measure.
The lack of transparency surrounding this list is a critical issue. If the Department of Justice is compiling a database of individuals and organizations deemed domestic terrorists, without a clear legal framework or due process, it fundamentally undermines democratic principles. The secrecy surrounding its existence and the criteria for inclusion prevent public scrutiny and the possibility of challenging erroneous designations. The suggestion that this list could be accessed via a “secret app,” rather than a formally acknowledged list, further points to a deliberate attempt to maintain plausible deniability.
The parallels drawn by some observers to historical periods of political repression, such as McCarthyism or the rise of authoritarian regimes, are not unfounded. The deliberate conflation of dissent with terrorism, the creation of secret lists, and the expansion of surveillance capabilities all echo concerning patterns from the past. The absence of a defined federal crime for “domestic terrorism” further complicates the legitimacy of such a list, as it appears to be a construct created to label and potentially target individuals without the established legal safeguards.
Ultimately, the existence of a secret domestic terrorist list, as acknowledged by Attorney General Pam Bondi, demands rigorous examination and public accountability. The broad and subjective criteria for inclusion, the lack of transparency, and the potential for political targeting raise profound questions about the state of civil liberties and the direction of national security policy. The ability to identify and label citizens as threats based on their ideologies, rather than concrete criminal actions, represents a dangerous precedent that could have chilling effects on free expression and political participation.