About That New Counterterrorism Strategy
Nano Banana prompt: Can you create an image in the style of a James Rosenquist dot ink image of an Interim Assistant to the Regional Obergruppenführer starring in a cereal commercial and saying, "It’s Fascistically Delicious!"?
May 14, 2026
The Assistant to the Regional Obergruppenführer
TLDR
Over the past two years, the Trump administration has begun using state powers to investigate and dismantle what it considers enemies of its regime.
The three major milestones for this crackdown have been: the NSPM-7 presidential directive, the federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and, as of last week, the release of the administration’s official counterterrorism strategy.
Taken together, they reveal the administration’s attack strategy, and the specific tactics to watch out for going forward.
What?
Last week, Trump signed the first formal Counterterrorism strategy of his second term. The startling document was written by noted fashion icon and White House's Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism, Sebastian Gorka.
Gorka names three major domestic threat categories: narcoterrorist cartels, legacy Islamist networks, and "violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists."
Prior counterterrorism strategies focused on international threats and right-wing domestic extremism. This one treats left-wing secular movements as a co-equal national security priority by adding that third category, which doubles down on the opening salvo of this crackdown, NSPM-7. In case you were wondering, the strategy does make plain that it "will not be used to target our fellow Americans who simply disagree with us.” It then gives the game away by outlining in detail how it will target groups defined by ideological characteristics — "anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist" — that have no statutory meaning and that investigators can apply at their own discretion. In other words, our fellow Americans who simply disagree with Trump and/or the Assistant to the Regional Obergruppenführer . Last week, Gorka answered a question about whether the administration regarded right-wing extremism as a threat by (surprise!) naming Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes as figures who "may not be conservatives" and who therefore fall outside the protections the strategy claims to extend to political dissidents. Gorka’s remarks make the strategy's subtext text: the framework's boundaries are not fixed by ideology They are set by political loyalty to the current administration, and subject to Trump’s whims. Gorka told a separate interviewer that major media had largely ignored the strategy's release. "We are moving so fast, they just can't keep up with us," he said, calling the lack of coverage "delicious." He did NOT wait a beat, smile at the camera, and then say, “Fascistically delicious.” But we got his point anyway. The DOJ’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud and money laundering last month was the first big headline of the regime’s use of NSPM-7 infrastructure against a major progressive advocacy group. But the wider MAGA campaign against the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country might actually be the clearer model of how the strategy will work in practice. In November 2025, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott designated the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations under state law, barring them from purchasing land in Texas. Three weeks later, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a parallel executive order designating both organizations as terrorist groups (as if they are the same!) and directing every state agency, county, and city to deny CAIR contracts, employment, funding, and benefits — and to deny the same to anyone providing CAIR with "material support," including "expert advice or assistance." Both governors said publicly that they welcomed the resulting lawsuits, because litigation would give the state access to CAIR's financial records through the discovery process. (Note the pattern: Big feelings-based legal maneuver with fact-based consequences for the target. Very SLAPPy! ) Between August 2025 and January 2026, four separate letters went to the IRS calling for investigation of CAIR and revocation of its tax-exempt status, and Florida Rep. Andy Fine introduced a federal bill designating CAIR as a terrorist threat in the House in June 2025. Just recently, a Texas federal court ordered CAIR to disclose the identity of all donors giving $5,000 or more over the past decade, including foreign sources, plus travel records for its executive director covering nine Middle Eastern countries from 2019 to 2023.
That order is the NSPM-7 donor disclosure risk made concrete: a state-level terrorism designation, challenged in court by the target organization, produced a discovery order that now compels financial transparency the organization never agreed to provide. A federal judge in Florida issued a temporary injunction blocking DeSantis's executive order in March 2026, but then in April 2026, DeSantis went ahead and signed legislation giving state officials statutory — not just executive — authority to issue domestic terrorism designations, replacing the order the court blocked with a law. So: a feelings-based terrorism designation unlikely to survive legal challenge produced massive reputational damage, donor disclosure, financial scrutiny, and major operational disruption, all without any proven facts. The most immediate risks? Roll that beautiful bean footage: State-level terrorism designations. Florida's April 2026 law gives state officials statutory authority to designate domestic organizations as terrorist groups. DeSantis converted Trump’s executive order into actual legislation. Texas has parallel authority. Both states have shown they will use these powers against civil rights organizations with no federal terrorism designation and no criminal charges. Financial de-platforming. Banks and donor-advised funds may preemptively suspend services to organizations flagged in federal communications, as has already occurred in the SPLC case. No criminal charge is required for this to happen, just bad vibes. IRS and Treasury scrutiny. The joint mission center's mandate includes proactive identification of targets. The IRS whistleblower program has been publicly encouraged by the agency to report fraud at tax-exempt organizations. An audit triggered by a politically motivated tip is legal and difficult to contest up front. *NB: All typos are indices of anarchist-leaning idealogy.
(ICYMI: NSPM-7 is the September 2025 presidential directive that authorized the DOJ, FBI, Treasury, and IRS to investigate domestic organizations tied to “organized political violence.” The administration’s definition of that term was broad enough to include “anti-capitalism” and “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.")
The strategy labels enemies the same way NSPM-7 did, even adding "radically pro-transgender" language for good measure, but it also has operational language that is way more specific. For example, it formally incorporates offensive cyber operations as an authorized tool against designated domestic threat groups, an authority not included in NSPM-7, and it directs state powers to "map [Trump admin enemies] at home, identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa, and use law enforcement tools to cripple them operationally before they can maim or kill the innocent."
So What?
Now What?
Forced donor disclosure. NSPM-7 authorized investigation of funders, and the CAIR case shows how it can happen. A grand jury subpoena or civil discovery request targeting a fiscal sponsor or donor-advised fund could force disclosure of contributor lists that organizations have treated as confidential. (For the sickos: While AFP v. Bonta does offer some protection against compelled regulatory disclosure, the administration appears to have noticed this, and the tools it is actually using — terrorism designations that generate civil litigation, criminal investigations, and national security inquiries — were each selected in part because they bypass exactly this protection. Womp womp.)
Cyber-Syping. The 2026 strategy's authorization of offensive cyber tools against domestic threat groups creates a digital surveillance and disruption risk for organizations that meet (or could be argued to meet) the strategy's ideological criteria. Given the cozy Palantir relationship , the Israeli blueprint , and the prevalence of F lock cameras and suspect Apple notifications , it’s not looking good for comms security.
Protest and event exposure. The membership-mapping directive applies to organizations with documented participation in protest activity near events or groups the administration has already designated. Any organization whose staff or partners have appeared at demonstrations alongside “Antifa-adjacent: groups, however the Assistant to the Regional Obergruppenführer defines that are at risk.
