Columns

Twenty years ago, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first “stand your ground” law, calling it a “good, common-sense, anti-crime issue.”

(THE CONVERSATION) — Twenty years ago, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first “stand your ground” law, calling it a “good, common-sense, anti-crime issue.”

The law’s creators promised it would protect law-abiding citizens from prosecution if they used force in self-defense. Then-Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who cosponsored the bill, claimed – in the wake of George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal for the killing of Trayvon Martin – that “we’re really safer if we empower people to stop violent acts.”

I’m a historian who has studied the roots of stand your ground laws. I published a book on the subject in 2017. My ongoing investigation of the laws suggests that, 20 years on, they have not made communities any safer, nor have they helped prevent crime. In fact, there is reliable evidence they have done just the opposite.

In the past 20 years, stand your ground has spread to 38 states.

Then, in September 2025, an appellate court struck down Florida’s long-standing ban on the open carry of firearms.

Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, quickly announced that open carry is now “the law of the state,” directing law enforcement not to arrest people who display handguns in public.

Under the state’s permitless carry law, enacted in 2023, adults without a criminal record also don’t need a permit or any training to carry firearms publicly.

In my view, this combination of stand your ground, open carry and permitless carry is likely to make the Sunshine State far less safe.

Let’s look at the evidence.

—————

What ‘stand your ground’ means

Under traditional self-defense law, a person had a duty to retreat – to try to avoid a violent confrontation if they could safely do so – before resorting to deadly force.

The main exception to the duty to retreat was known as the castle doctrine, whereby people could defend themselves, with force if necessary, if they were attacked in their own homes.

Stand your ground laws effectively expand the boundaries of the castle doctrine to the wider world, removing the duty to retreat and allowing people to use lethal force anywhere they have a legal right to be, as long as they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or serious harm.

On paper, the expansion of the right to self-defense may sound reasonable. But in practice, stand your ground laws have blurred the line between self-defense and aggression by expanding legal immunity for some who claim self-defense and shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

While supporters of these laws claim they mitigate crime and make people safer, evidence shows the opposite. The nonpartisan RAND Corp. discovered that states adopting stand your ground laws experienced significant increases in homicide, typically between 8% and 11% higher than before the laws took effect.

A study of violent crime in Florida revealed a 31.6% increase in firearm homicides following the 2005 passage of the stand your ground law. There is no credible evidence that these laws deter crime.

On the contrary, evidence shows that stand your ground laws lower the legal, moral and psychological costs of pulling the trigger.

—————

Stand your ground and race

While the language of stand your ground laws is race-neutral, their enforcement is not. Data from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights show that in states with stand your ground laws, homicides are far more likely to be deemed “justified” when the shooter is white and the victim is Black.

I’ve found that these laws have redefined not only when force is justified but who is justified in using force.

In my assessment, these laws don’t create racial bias. Rather, they magnify the biases already present in our criminal legal system. They give broader discretion to a legal system in which law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and juries often hold unacknowledged biases that associate Black men with criminality, while perceiving white people who say they were defending themselves as credible.

That dynamic is visible in a growing multitude of cases, such as the shootings of unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride and Ralph Yarl.

Each instance illustrates how stand your ground transforms ordinary mistakes or misunderstandings into lethal outcomes, and how armed citizens’ claims of “reasonable fear” often reflect racial stereotypes more than objective threats.

—————

A dangerous mix

Florida’s legalization of open carry intersects with the state’s permitless carry and stand your ground laws in alarming ways. Open carry increases the visibility – and perceived legitimacy – of guns in everyday life.

Combined with the removal of licensing procedures and training requirements, laws that broaden the right to use deadly force create a permissive environment for opportunistic violence.

When everyone is visibly armed, every encounter can look like a potential threat. And when the law tells you that you don’t have to back down, that perception can turn lethal in seconds.

Florida has become a model for what gun rights advocates call “freedom” but what public health experts see as a recipe for more shootings and more death.

—————

National implications: ‘Reciprocity’ and expansion

Two decades later, stand your ground laws have spread, in various forms, to 38 states. While 30 states have legislatively enacted stand your ground statutes like Florida’s, eight others implement stand your ground through case law and jury instructions that effectively remove the duty to retreat.

On top of this, 29 states have enacted laws allowing permitless carry, and 47 technically allow open carry, though restrictions vary across the states.

President Donald Trump has made clear he wants to take this deregulatory approach nationwide. While on the campaign trail, he promised to sign a “concealed-carry reciprocity” law, which would require all states to allow people from states with permissive laws to exercise those rights in all 50. “Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line,” he announced in a 2023 video.

If that vision becomes reality, it would mean the most permissive state laws will set the standard for the entire country. National reciprocity would allow Floridians, and other gun owners from permitless carry states, to carry their firearms – and potentially claim stand your ground immunity – in any other state, including those with stricter rules and lower rates of firearm death and injury.

This prospect raises deep questions about states’ rights, safety and justice. Research shows that stand your ground laws increase homicide and exacerbate racial disparities. National reciprocity would export those effects nationwide.

In my view, the convergence of stand your ground, open carry and national reciprocity marks the culmination of a 20-year experiment in armed citizenship. The results are clear: more people armed, more shootings and more deaths “justified.”

The question now is whether the rest of the nation will follow Florida’s lead.

For most of American history, the United States – and Michigan – had no zoning at all. Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and other major cities grew rapidly before municipal zoning codes existed. The most stringent forms of zoning were created only during the past few decades.?

For most of American history, the United States – and Michigan – had no zoning at all. Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and other major cities grew rapidly before municipal zoning codes existed. The most stringent forms of zoning were created only during the past few decades.?

In many minds, zoning is meant to separate heavy industry from homes. But it has expanded in scope far beyond that. Local boards began micromanaging the kinds of houses people could build, where businesses could locate, how dense settlements could be, and even what buildings could look like. Many people assume zoning is essential to “lay out” a town. But historically it’s the opposite: Towns develop first, and local officials impose zoning later.

It’s not clear that zoning makes cities better planned. Detroit adopted its first (very light) zoning ordinance in 1940. That was long after it had become one of the nation’s largest and most economically dynamic cities. Most communities take shape through natural forces: Businesses locate where customers are, builders put up single- or multi-family homes where people want to live, and industry locates where the infrastructure and available land make sense. Few people could walk through towns in northern Michigan and identify which are unzoned and which have thick zoning codes. The difference tends to show up mostly in cost, not appearance.?

Banks Township in Antrim County is now debating what to do with its zoning code. Some places in Michigan have no zoning, while others have zoning at the township, city, or county level. Banks Township is considering scrapping its zoning code, which has stirred strong opinions.?

Supporters of zoning say they fear a gravel pit without it. Or they believe zoning protects the environment, controls traffic, reduces congestion and does other good things. But if those are the concerns, zoning is often the wrong tool. Michigan already has extensive state and federal environmental laws and regulations.??

Further, there are better, less restrictive, ways government can manage their towns without zoning. They can regulate nuisances by passing (or enforcing) standards for water, air and light pollution. Some local governments, even those with minimal zoning laws, have rules that establish barriers between, say, a strip club and a school. Local governments can also adopt police-power ordinances, which regulate activities that affect public health, safety, and welfare, such as noise, dust, hours of operation, open burning, traffic, parking and waste disposal.?

Using common law ordinances and general regulations is much better than drawing arbitrary lines through zoning codes. Zoning regulates land use categories. They dictate where homes, businesses, or industrial buildings can go, as well as minimum lot sizes, building setbacks, parking minimums and density. Police-power ordinances regulate the impacts of activities, not whether a parcel must be single-family or whether someone can add a deck.?

“No zoning,” then, does not mean “no rules.” A township without zoning does not dictate whether a lot can hold a single-family home or an apartment. But it can still enforce building safety codes, environmental protections, nuisance rules and activity-based restrictions. Municipalities that lack zoning still retain the core tools they need to protect residents. They just do it without dictating in detail what can be built where.?

Reevaluating zoning is a great idea for local governments. The rise of these codes has not solved the problems many proponents say they are focused on. And it has made other problems, including affordability, flexibility and property rights, worse. That’s why recent years have seen major rollbacks in zoning regulations in Minneapolis; Alexandria, Virginia; Sacramento; Austin and elsewhere.??

If lawmakers and regulators want to solve real problems, they should use the least-restrictive government policy option and not fall back on “what we’ve always done.” This does a better job of protecting property rights and community well-being.

—————

Jarrett Skorup is the vice president for marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary in 2026 is certain to be a time of national reflection.

By Graeme Mack
University of Richmond

(THE CONVERSATION) — The Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary in 2026 is certain to be a time of national reflection.

Americans tend to look to the Constitution to assess whether the nation is living up to its founding principles when navigating major social and political issues.

But it is the declaration, signed on July 4, 1776, that declares the nation’s credo, that “all men are created equal.”

Throughout history, Americans have turned to the declaration for guidance about what the nation should stand for.

As a historian of the United States and the coordinator for the University of Richmond’s Forging a New Nation initiative, which commemorates the Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary, I have been thinking a lot about this phenomenon.

Particularly during times of social and political upheaval, Americans have sought out the Declaration of Independence when they wanted to remedy contemporary problems and create new visions for the country’s future. Many of the nation’s greatest leaders have praised and memorialized its rhetoric and ideas in the promotion of their own.

—————

Inalienable rights?

During the turbulent 1850s, the divisive issue of slavery permeated every facet of American life and challenged basic precepts of American freedom.

In his 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” Frederick Douglass, the formerly enslaved abolitionist, used the declaration to set a standard for American society. As a Black American, Douglass insisted he was “not included within the pale” who enjoyed the “inalienable rights” articulated in the declaration.

Nonetheless, the “great principles of the Declaration” gave Douglass hope and cause for optimism. He predicted that the “glorious hour” would soon arrive when all Americans would be defined “by equal birth.”

—————

Conceived in liberty

In its 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, the Supreme Court denied Black Americans the rights of citizenship.

Abraham Lincoln denounced the decision and countered by defining a more capacious view of American freedom based on the declaration.

Lincoln told one audience that Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the declaration “set up a standard maxim for free society,” which they “intended to include all men” and to be “constantly looked to, constantly labored for.”

Their goal, Lincoln said, was “augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

As civil war ravaged the country and claimed thousands of American lives, Lincoln again drew on the declaration to articulate a vision for the country as president.

In his 1863 Gettysburg Address, commemorating the dead on that Pennsylvania battlefield, Lincoln described the United States as a “nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

The nation, he said, was undergoing a “new birth of freedom” as it waged war on slavery and defended its government against domestic rebellion.

—————

Self-evident truth

Seventy years later, the declaration provided inspiration for President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he steered the nation through a crippling economic depression and the run-up to a world war. 
Roosevelt advocated for building America’s first social safety net by drawing on the declaration.

Reflecting Roosevelt’s aims, the 1936 Democratic Party platform illustrated this rhetorical strategy, borrowing from the declaration at its very beginning: “We hold this truth to be self evident – that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens.”

During his 1944 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt said the nation was built on the rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But, he argued, “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

—————

All created equal

Amid the political and social upheaval of the 1960s, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. drew directly and self-consciously on the declaration.

In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, King defined an America that “guaranteed unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to its citizens.

Though the nation had “defaulted on this promissory note insofar as its citizens of color are concerned,” King said, the declaration still offered him hope: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

In 2025, Americans saw the deployment of U.S. troops in major cities, as well as mass immigrant deportations. These changes have upended communities and challenged basic norms of civil society. They have also challenged Americans’ understanding of themselves as a nation of immigrants.

With the declaration’s anniversary coming up at a time when so much about contemporary society and politics are being contested, Americans may well return once again to this founding document to define themselves as a people and a nation.

Ideological division was tearing the country apart. Factions denounced each other as unpatriotic and evil. There were attempted kidnappings and assassinations of political figures. Public monuments and art were desecrated all over the country.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Ideological division was tearing the country apart. Factions denounced each other as unpatriotic and evil. There were attempted kidnappings and assassinations of political figures. Public monuments and art were desecrated all over the country.

This was France in the middle of the 16th century. The divisions were rooted in religion.

The Protestant minority denounced Catholics as “superstitious idolaters,” while the Catholics condemned Protestants as “seditious heretics.” In 1560, Protestant conspirators attempted to kidnap the young King Francis II, hoping to replace his zealous Catholic regents with ones more sympathetic to the Protestant cause.

Two years later, the country collapsed into civil war. The French Wars of Religion had begun – and would convulse the country for the next 36 years.

I am a historian of the Reformation who writes about the opponents of John Calvin, a leading Protestant theologian who influenced Reformed Christians, Presbyterians, Puritans and other denominations for centuries. One of the most significant of Calvin’s rivals was the humanist Sebastian Castellio, whom he had worked with in Geneva before a bitter falling out over 
theology.

Soon after the first war in France broke out, Castellio penned a treatise that was far ahead of its time. Rather than join in the bitter denunciations raging between Protestants and Catholics, Castellio condemned intolerance itself.

He identified the main problem as both sides’ efforts to “force consciences” – to compel people to believe things they did not believe. In my view, that advice from nearly five centuries ago has much to say to the world today.

—————

Foreseeing the carnage

Castellio rose to prominence in 1554 when he condemned the execution of Michael Servetus, a medical doctor and theologian convicted of heresy. Servetus had rejected the standard Christian belief in the Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God.

Already condemned by the Catholic Inquisition in France, Servetus was passing through Geneva when Calvin urged his arrest and advocated for his execution. Servetus was burned alive at the stake.

Castellio condemned the execution in a remarkable book titled “Concerning Heretics: Whether They are to be Persecuted and How They are to be Treated.” In it, Castellio questioned the very notion of heresy: “After a careful investigation into the meaning of the term heretic, I can discover no more than this, that we regard those as heretics with whom we disagree.”

In the process, he laid the intellectual foundations for religious toleration that would come to dominate Western political philosophy during the Enlightenment.

But it took centuries for religious toleration to take hold.

In the meantime, Europe became embroiled in a series of religious wars. Most were civil wars between Protestants and Catholics, including the French Wars of Religion, a series of conflicts from 1562 to 1598. These included one of the most horrific events of the 16th century: the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572, when thousands of Protestants were slain in a nationwide bloodbath.

Castellio had seen the carnage coming: “So much blood will flow,” he had warned in a treatise 10 years earlier, “that its loss will be irremediable.”

—————

Remembering the Golden Rule

Castellio’s 1562 book, “Advice to a Desolate France,” was a rarity in the 16th century, for it sought compromise and the middle ground rather than the religious extremes.

With an extraordinarily modern sensibility, he decided to use the terms each side preferred for themselves, rather than the negative epithets used by their opponents.

“I shall call them what they call themselves,” he explained, “in order not to offend them.” Hence, he used “Catholics” rather than “Papists” and “evangelicals” rather than “Huguenots.”

Castellio pulled no punches. To the Catholics, referring to decades of Protestant persecution in France, he said: “Recall how you have treated the evangelicals. You have pursued and imprisoned them … and then you have roasted them alive at a slow fire to prolong their torture. And for what crime? Because they did not believe in the pope, the Mass, and purgatory. … Is that a good and just cause for burning men alive?”

To the Protestants, he complained, “You are forcing them against their consciences to attend your sermons, and what is worse, you are forcing some to take up arms against their own brothers.” He noted that they were using three “remedies” for healing the church, “namely bloodshed, the forcing of consciences, and the condemning and regarding as unfaithful of those who are not entirely in agreement with your doctrine.”

In short, Castellio accused both sides of ignoring the Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you,” he wrote. “This is a rule so true, so just, so natural, and so written by the finger of God in the hearts of all,” he asserted, that none can deny it.

Both sides were trying to promote their vision of true religion, Castellio said, but both were going about it the wrong way. In particular, he warned against trying to justify evil behavior by appealing to its possible effects: “One should not do wrong in order that good may result from it.”

In another essay, he made the same point to argue against torture, writing that “Evil must not be done in order to pursue the good.” Castellio was the anti-Machiavelli; for him, the ends did not justify the means.

—————

Force doesn’t work

Finally, “Advice to a Desolate France” argued that forcing people to your own way of thinking never works: “We manifestly see that those who are forced to accept the Christian religion, whether they are a people or individuals, never make good Christians.”

Americans, I believe, would do well to bear Castellio’s words in mind today. The country’s two dominant political parties have become increasingly polarized. Students are reluctant to speak out on controversial topics for fear of “saying the wrong thing.” Americans increasingly think in binary terms of good and evil, friends and enemies.

In the 16th century, Christians failed to heed Castellio’s advice and continued to kill each other over differences of belief for another hundred years. It would be wise to apply his ideas to today’s bitter divisions.

Higher education is under stress. The highest-profile threat has been the Trump administration’s efforts to cut funding to several universities, including Harvard, Columbia and Northwestern.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Higher education is under stress. The highest-profile threat has been the Trump administration’s efforts to cut funding to several universities, including Harvard, Columbia and Northwestern.

Research universities heavily depend on federal money to conduct research and carry out other areas of work. For example, after tuition, federal money allocated for research made up 40% of the total revenue for two major research universities — Johns Hopkins University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology — in the 2022-23 academic year.

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has terminated various federal grants for universities valued between US$6.9 billion and $8.2 billion.

While there’s been a lot of public attention to the federal government’s financial pressure on universities, universities have been experiencing financial pressure from other sources.

Understanding that is key for applicants and parents to understand their bargaining position when choosing whether and where to pursue a college degree.

As scholars of public administration and economics and former university administrators, we think parents and college applicants need to understand this economic landscape to make smart choices about making such a major investment. Here are four key things to know.

—————

1. Universities are an industry

Most American private colleges and universities are nonprofits, but they still care about revenue. These schools aren’t responsible to shareholders, but they may respond to pressure from alumni, students, employees, donors, boards, the federal government and, if the schools are public universities, state governments.

And like businesses, nonprofit colleges and universities need money. As a result, despite what you might think, most colleges are not particularly selective. Though they don’t advertise that fact, hundreds of schools will take any student who meets minimal academic requirements and can pay tuition.

The added cost of teaching additional students is minimal when there are empty seats, so admitting more students can lead to an increase in revenue for most schools.

This is important because colleges’ costs – largely staff salaries and building maintenance – are hard to cut and are mostly fixed. Those costs must be spread across fewer students when there are unfilled seats.

As the number of people who go to college is declining, colleges need to respond to people’s skepticism about the value of degrees – but change is difficult.

Becoming a smaller school is challenging. If students show less interest in foreign language study and more interest in data science classes, the school cannot have a German language professor suddenly teach data science.

As a result, colleges can become stuck with faculty who teach course students don’t want to take.

Unlike business leaders, who may be rewarded for fixing a failing company by laying off workers, university leaders who eliminate faculty positions become unpopular among their peers. This can reduce their chance to advance their careers at their current universities or switch to a new school.

—————

2. Schools have to work to admit students

Colleges enrolled 8.4% fewer students in 2024 than when attendance peaked at 21 million in 2010. As a result, schools must increasingly compete harder to attract students.

One way is to offer a better price, meaning lower tuition. Like most elite schools, Harvard has a listed price of about $60,000 for tuition alone in one academic year – and nearly $87,000 when food, housing and other services are included. Few students actually pay that amount, though the exact percentage getting a discount is not public information.

The average net price a Harvard student paid in 2023-24 was $17,900, as colleges offered either financial aid, straight-up discounts or scholarships.

Most schools engage in this sort of price discrimination, the term economists use to describe charging different prices to different customers based on their willingness to pay. In some ways, this is much like airlines selling seats on the same flights at different prices.

—————

3. Schools have a declining foreign customer base

Another enrollment remedy for colleges and universities to boost tuition revenue has been focusing on admitting international students, who typically pay full price.

One-fourth of all international students in the U.S. come from China, while another quarter come from India.

Most schools have not pursued this strategy of expanding foreign enrollment as aggressively as Columbia University, where international students approach 40% of the student body.

By comparison, international undergraduate students made up 6% of Columbia’s undergraduate student population in 2000, and 12% in 2011.

But the revenue that international students generate is not a guarantee. Foreign student enrollment declined 17% from fall of 2024 to 2025.

In part, that’s because of some students’ inability to get a visa or fear their authorization to study in the U.S. will be revoked.

Rising competition from universities in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, combined with stricter U.S. visa policies and geopolitical tensions with China, have led to rapid declines in Chinese students enrolling at American schools.

The number of Chinese undergraduate and graduate students attending U.S. colleges and universities has dropped from 317,299 in 2019 to 265,919 in the 2024-25 school year.

This change has increased the financial strain on American colleges and universities, many of which have grown accustomed to having large numbers of international students who pay their own way.

—————

4. The value of the product is in question

With recent changes to federal loan forgiveness programs, some students and their parents are questioning the value of a college degree.

Just 22% of Americans said in 2024 that a college degree is worth the cost, if a student has to borrow money to get it.

The University of Texas system – made up of nine universities and four medical schools – shares information on the average income of graduates for every degree program after graduation.

In the case of the University of Texas at Arlington, the average salary for a drama, theater arts and stagecraft major is $14,933 one year after graduation. This amount goes up to $39,608 10 years after graduation, resulting in a negative $324,210 return on the price of college over that first decade.

Of course, some degrees pay off. A University of Texas at Arlington graduate with a degree in civil engineering earns an average of $67,920 one year after college and $105,377 10 years after graduation, demonstrating a positive return on investment of $1.15 million.

We believe that universities and colleges should reform to address the next generation’s uncertainty about higher education.

College applicants should be asking hard questions. What is the data on graduates’ earnings compared to the cost of their program? Where are graduates employed?

If more people treated buying a college degree with the same care they use to buy their first home – an equivalent investment – colleges and universities would feel pressure to become more transparent for students and parents. They would also become more aligned with the rapidly evolving demands of the workplace.

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

By Melinda Haas
University of Pittsburgh

(THE CONVERSATION) — A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

You’ve probably heard a lot about President Donald Trump’s many executive orders. But as an international relations scholar who has studied U.S. foreign policy decision-making and national security legislation, I recognize that presidents can take several types of executive actions without legislative involvement: executive orders, memoranda and proclamations.

This structure allows the president to direct law enforcement and national security agencies, with little opportunity for congressional oversight.

This seventh national security memorandum from the Trump White House pushes the limits of presidential authority by targeting individuals and groups as potential domestic terrorists based on their beliefs rather than their actions.

The memorandum represents a profound shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that risks undermining foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

—————

Presidential national security powers

Executive memoranda instruct government officials and agencies by delegating tasks and directing agency actions.

They can, for example, order a department to prepare reports, implement new policies, coordinate interagency efforts or review existing programs to align with the administration’s priorities.

Unlike executive orders, they are not required to be published. When these memoranda, like NSPM-7, relate to national security and military and foreign policy, they are called national security directives, although the specific name of these directives changes with each administration.

Many of these directives are classified. They may not be declassified, if at all, until years or decades after the end of the administration that issued them.

The stated purpose of NSPM-7 is to counter domestic terrorism and organized political violence, focusing mainly on perceived threats from the political left. The memorandum identifies “anti-Christian,” “anti-capitalism” or “anti-American” views as potential indicators that a group or person will commit domestic terrorism.

The memorandum claims that political violence originates with “anti-fascist” groups that hold the following views: “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.”

The strategy laid out in NSPM-7 includes preemptive measures to disrupt groups before they engage in violent political acts. For example, multiagency task forces are empowered to investigate potential federal crimes related to radicalization, as well as the funders of those potential crimes.

—————

‘Domestic terrorist organizations’

The memorandum directs the Department of Justice to focus the resources of the FBI’s approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces on investigating “acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons” for the purpose of “political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights; and the violent deprivation of any citizen’s rights.”

NSPM-7 also allows the attorney general to propose groups for designation as “domestic terrorist organizations.” That includes groups that engage in the following behaviors: “organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder.”

Existing laws allow the secretary of state to designate groups as “foreign terrorist organizations” that are then subject to financial sanctions.

But these laws do not permit the president to label domestic groups this way.

—————

Defining terrorism

NSPM-7 marks a major conceptual shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy. Its focus on domestic terrorism significantly departs from historical approaches that primarily targeted foreign threats.

Earlier presidential directives largely defined terrorism as a foreign threat to be countered through military power, diplomacy and international cooperation.

Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. government had treated terrorism as a global menace to democratic institutions, emphasizing protection of citizens and allies abroad. By moving away from a traditional law enforcement framework and recasting terrorism as an act of war, the Reagan administration situated the issue within the broader realm of Cold War geopolitics and military advantage.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration reframed terrorism as both a foreign policy and domestic security challenge, particularly after high-profile attacks such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton’s policy highlighted the dangers of transnational networks and the need to defend critical infrastructure.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration fused counterterrorism with national defense. The Bush-initiated global war on terrorism expanded the concept of who constituted a threat to include countries that harbored or aided terrorist organizations.

The Obama administration tried to narrow and regulate those powers by embedding counterterrorism within a system of legal rules and procedures. The key question, according to the declassified guidance, was whether the targeted individuals “pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.”

This standard was not focused on ideology but rather on tactical considerations, such as the feasibility of capture and continued threat to U.S. interests.

For example, the lethal drone strike on al-Qaida propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 was justified on the basis that he was actively involved in plotting attacks and remained unreachable for capture.

During the first Trump presidency, executive orders were used to change counterterrorism policy, most notably through several iterations of a “travel ban” that attempted to restrict immigration from terror-prone countries such as Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The Biden administration redirected attention toward preventing catastrophic threats, especially from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of groups or individuals outside of governments, such as terrorist organizations.

—————

First Amendment rights at risk

There is no single official definition of terrorism in U.S. law.

Instead, laws use different definitions based on their purpose, whether criminal law or laws relating to intelligence collection or civil liability.

Definitions in all those areas typically focus on identifying violent or dangerous acts done with the intent to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy.

But more than redefining terrorism, NSPM-7 reorients the machinery of national security toward the policing of belief.

The First Amendment generally prevents the government from punishing people for unpopular opinions. It also protects the ability for people to associate to advance public and private ideas in pursuit of political, 
economic, religious or cultural goals.

The directive’s emphasis on ideological orientations – “anti-Christianity,” “anti-capitalism” and “anti-American” views – as indicators of domestic terrorism potentially jeopardizes First Amendment rights.

Thirty-one members of Congress sent a letter to Trump expressing “serious concerns” about NSPM-7, warning that it poses “serious constitutional, statutory and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest or ideological speech.”

As the ACLU warns, any definition of terrorism that includes ideological components risks criminalizing people or groups based on belief rather than based on violence or other criminal conduct.

Congress has declined to create a domestic complement to the foreign terrorist designation in large part because of the potential for impinging on First Amendment–protected association and speech.

But I fear that chilling speech may be the point.

—————

Silencing dissent

NSPM-7 does not authorize new actions in the legal and institutional framework for counterterrorism. It does not criminalize previously legal conduct.

Rather, it states that the Trump administration’s investigative focus will be around the identity and ideology of supposed perpetrators. Prioritizing investigations into this broad swath of ideologies serves to instill fear, silencing anti-fascist and other messages in opposition to the Trump administration.

Law professor Steve Vladeck frames this chill as “obeying in advance,” in which organizations self-censor rather than risk investigation, prosecution or defending against the “domestic terrorist” label.

Although left-wing violence has risen in the past decade, empirical evidence proves that this violence remains at very low absolute levels, well below historical levels of right-wing or jihadist violence.

In fact, most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

Yet NSPM-7 focuses disproportionately on left-wing ideologies. NSPM-7 departs from prior U.S. counterterrorism frameworks by prioritizing the suppression of ideologically motivated dissent, even in the absence of concrete evidence of violent intent.