Introduction
I carry this deeply: if justice truly matters for the Black community, we must pay attention when the machinery of power shifts toward repression. Recently, President Trump issued NSPM-7, the National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, a directive framed as a plan to counter “domestic terrorism and organized political violence.” On the surface, it sounds like protection — a measure against real threats. But beneath that language lie tools designed to surveil, label, and silence dissenting voices. For Black-led movements and community organizations, this isn’t an abstract policy — it’s a familiar danger. History reminds us that when Black people organize for justice, the state often responds with fear and control. From COINTELPRO to the targeting of civil rights leaders, this pattern has never truly ended; it just changes its name. NSPM-7 echoes that same strategy, using “security” as its disguise. What begins as national defense often ends as political suppression. That’s why awareness is not optional — it’s survival. This moment calls for courage, unity, and a collective refusal to be silenced.
Echoes of McCarthyism in Modern Policy
McCarthyism began as a ferocious campaign to root out alleged communists in the 1950s, yet many accused were innocent, blacklisted, or prosecuted without credible evidence. As in the past, who bears the brunt of suspicion is rarely random — marginalized groups are usually first. In those decades, Black activists like Angela Davis were targeted, smeared, and surveilled under the guise of national security even though their ideas rarely aligned with communism. Today, NSPM-7 revives a version of that playbook, but replaces “communism” with any ideology that challenges the narrative of power. The danger now is not just the past redux but a modern doctrine where critique, protest, and structural demands can be reframed as threats. Even groups that have never advocated violence may be swept into investigations under vague “indicators” of political violence. History warns us that when the apparatus of repression turns inward, words become weapons, and organizing becomes perilous. We must not let the lessons of the past be forgotten or dismissed.
NSPM-7: Power in Ambiguity
NSPM-7 does not establish new crimes; instead, it empowers existing agencies — DOJ, Treasury, IRS, and the FBI — to interpret domestic threats in a broad and subjective manner. This gives authorities wide discretion to monitor, investigate, and potentially target organizations based on their ideology or activities.
It requires the Treasury to track financial flows and instructs the IRS to monitor tax-exempt groups to ensure they are not funding political violence. Federal agencies are also empowered to investigate ideology, motives, and organizational practices. Notably, the directive identifies “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “hostility toward traditional family or religion” as potential indicators of domestic threat. This vague language blurs the line between lawful dissent and criminal behavior. Peaceful protest, criticism of law enforcement, or advocacy for reform could all be construed as suspicious. Legal scholars warn this approach is dangerous because it may pressure groups to “comply in advance” to avoid scrutiny. The memorandum relies on interpretation rather than clear legal standards, leaving organizations vulnerable. It effectively shifts power to agencies to define threats based on ideology. For Black-led and progressive groups, this opens the door to surveillance and harassment. NSPM-7 transforms civic engagement into a potential liability under the guise of national security.
Targeting Black Organizations and Movements
Black organizations have long been labeled threatening when they advocate for justice, from the Black Panthers in the 1960s to Black Lives Matter in the 2010s. Under NSPM-7, these same principles of organizing could be construed as seditious. Efforts to support abolition, critique policing or ICE, or demand radical equity might now trigger surveillance or IRS scrutiny. The policy does not require actual violence or incitement, meaning that mere speech or ideology could draw government attention. Legal experts are already advising nonprofits to prepare for investigations, audits, or potential criminal exposure. What was once recognized as civic engagement now carries real risk. The directive transforms lawful activism into a potentially hazardous endeavor. This is how the state manages dissent — not by direct confrontation, but by making its infrastructure risky to maintain. The implicit message is clear: organizing for change may come with consequences. Fear becomes a tool of compliance. NSPM-7 represents a continuation of historical patterns of repressing Black-led movements.
Resistance as Self-Defense
When those in power try to label dissent as threat, resistance becomes necessary for survival. It is not naïve to speak the truth, but vital. We must monitor how agencies like Treasury and IRS interpret “illicit funding.” We must build legal literacy, fund defense for organizations, and create networks that resist infiltration and intimidation. Public pressure, mass media, and solidarity across communities can make targeting politically expensive. We must also record and archive evidence of misuse, so future generations see not only the resistance but the abuses. Above all, we may need to redefine protection: not in terms of weapons or secrecy, but in strategy, voice, and cohesion. The act of organizing itself can be reclaiming, a refusal to be silenced even as they turn the pages of power against us.
Summary
We are living in a moment when policy is weaponized not against violence, but dissent. NSPM-7 revives hidden repression through financial tools, taxation, surveillance, and subjective ideology. The directive doesn’t merely target fringe actors — it targets the very infrastructure of Black-led movements, critical organizations, and our capacity to demand justice. Its ambiguity is its strength, allowing it to cloak repression in national security language. But history warns us that such tactics seldom save democracy — they corrode it. Our defense is clarity, resistance, and collective vigilance. We must meet this moment with courage, not confusion.
Conclusion
I grew up believing that Black voices rising for justice would be honored in the courts of conscience, not vilified by the machinery of fear. But history has shown me otherwise. Today’s memo, cloaked in bureaucracy, is a continuation of the same war on Black power masquerading as security. They may try to label our movements dangerous; we must refuse to let them render us voiceless. The power to define what is just cannot rest in their hands alone — we must seize it in our communities, in our strategy, in our testimony. When they say radical, we say righteous. When they frame us as threat, we speak truth. We resist — not because we are naïve, but because justice demands it. And if history teaches one thing, it’s that the voices that once echoed from the margins become the legacy that changes the nation.
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.