Using Military Inside the U.S. — Week of Sep 22, 2025

On September 25, 2025, President Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, directing federal agencies to investigate and disrupt groups that "foment political violence." The memorandum was issued in the wake of several real acts of violence, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, two assassination attempts against Trump during the 2024 campaign, and the 2024 killing of a healthcare executive. However, the directive goes beyond targeting violent actors — it identifies broad political beliefs including "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" and names "anti-fascism" as a movement warranting federal law enforcement attention.

This might matter because directing federal law enforcement to target people based on their political beliefs — rather than specific violent actions — could undermine the legal protections that prevent the government from using military-style power against American citizens engaged in lawful political activity. The United States has long maintained strict boundaries between military operations abroad and policing at home, and those boundaries exist to ensure that the government cannot treat its own citizens as enemy combatants simply for holding unpopular views.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. Most likely, this memorandum may have limited real-world impact — presidents often issue strongly worded directives after shocking events, and the agencies tasked with implementation may apply existing legal standards that focus on actual violence rather than political beliefs. The recent assassinations and assassination attempts cited in the document represent a genuine public safety concern that warrants a coordinated federal response. Additionally, Congress is actively engaged on this topic — a bill called the National Guard Proper Use Act was introduced the following day, suggesting lawmakers are monitoring military-domestic boundaries.

That said, the memorandum's specific naming of political movements and beliefs that align closely with the administration's political opposition is unusual for counterterrorism documents and raises legitimate questions about whether the framework could be used to investigate lawful political activity.

Limitations: This analysis is based on the published text of a presidential directive. How agencies actually implement the memorandum — whether broadly or narrowly — will determine its real-world consequences and is not yet known.