The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, recently brought to light by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, directed law enforcement to scrutinize individuals for actions not inherently criminal, raising alarms about potential civil liberties violations.
The memo, which outlined a four-part plan to combat domestic terrorism, instructed agencies like the FBI, Justice Department, and CIA to monitor “concerning non-criminal behavior” among Americans, particularly those in the military, owning firearms, or spreading what officials deemed “xenophobic” disinformation. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and a former Justice Department official, expressed deep concern, stating, “The memo’s mandate on probing ‘non-criminal behavior’ is particularly concerning.” This directive, critics argue, provided a foundation for targeting conservatives who dissented from the Biden-Harris agenda.
The strategy’s scope extended beyond traditional law enforcement boundaries, encouraging collaboration with Big Tech to share information and curb disinformation. It also pushed for legislative actions, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, alongside promoting red-flag laws. These measures, conservatives contend exibit excessive federal overreach, infringing on Second Amendment rights under the guise of national security. The memo’s emphasis on monitoring non-criminal actions has fueled suspicions of political weaponization.
One of the most contentious aspects of the memo was its directive for agencies to work with foreign governments to gather intelligence on U.S. citizens. The Biden administration tasked the State Department and others to “increase the priority of obtaining from foreign partners foreign intelligence and information related to U.S.-based violent extremism.” This move has been criticized as an unprecedented expansion of surveillance, potentially compromising American sovereignty and privacy.
Conservative commentators have pointed to specific instances where the memo’s framework appeared to justify targeting groups like Catholics and parents. The FBI’s scrutiny of traditionalist Catholic communities and the Justice Department’s labeling of concerned parents as potential domestic threats at school board meetings are seen as direct outcomes of this policy. These actions, critics argue, reflect a deliberate effort to silence dissent and stigmatize conservative values.
The declassified document also promoted “civics education” and “literacy education” to foster resilience against disinformation, initiatives conservatives view as thinly veiled attempts to indoctrinate Americans with progressive ideologies. The strategy’s focus on “confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism” has been interpreted as a coded attack on traditional American values, particularly those tied to faith, family, and individual liberty.
Representative Thomas Massie, a vocal critic, warned that the plan “raises serious civil liberties concerns” and “obliterates the line between legitimate security threats and constitutionally protected speech and behavior.” His remarks underscore a broader conservative sentiment that the Biden administration prioritized political opponents over genuine threats, such as those posed by unchecked immigration or foreign terrorist organizations.
The memo’s implications have resonated deeply with conservative audiences, who see it as evidence of federal overreach and a betrayal of constitutional principles. The authorization to monitor non-criminal behavior is perceived as a tool to suppress free speech and religious expression, particularly among those who challenge the prevailing narrative. This perception is compounded by the administration’s simultaneous granting of nearly 7,000 exemptions to terrorism-related entry bars for refugees, raising questions about its priorities.
The declassified memo has also reignited debates about the balance between national security and individual freedoms. Conservatives argue that true threats, such as Islamic terrorism or gang violence, were downplayed in favor of targeting Americans with dissenting views. The administration’s focus on “homegrown” extremism, critics assert, ignored the risks of an open border policy that allowed potential threats to enter unchecked.
Ella Ford