Federal authorities under President Donald Trump are quietly building a domestic “extremist” list that targets protected political and religious beliefs, according to an FBI leaked memo obtained and published by reporter Ken Klippenstein.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has signed a pivotal directive that instructs the FBI to implement President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum‑7 (NSPM‑7). This move has sparked controversy as it is seen as shifting the focus of a new War on Terror towards domestic issues rather than international threats.

Bondi orders FBI to list domestic “extremists”

Journalist Ken Klippenstein reports that the directive outlines a plan for the FBI to compile a list of groups or individuals deemed to be engaging in activities that might be considered domestic terrorism. Specifically targeted are Americans expressing views such as opposition to law enforcement and immigration policies, support for mass migration and open borders, radical gender ideologies, anti-American sentiment, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity. These perspectives are labeled as potential indicators of terrorism, prompting federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces to employ every investigative tool at their disposal to map out the networks of those involved, both within and beyond U.S. borders.

The leaked memo instructs FBI agents to revisit and scrutinize incidents from the past five years, essentially granting them the authority to re-evaluate past behaviors and speech for new terrorism cases. This directive is grounded in NSPM‑7, turning Trump’s stance on “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence” into a practical strategy, according to Klippenstein.

Bounty system and surveillance incentives

Going further than mere classification, Bondi’s directive mandates the FBI to not only expand but also widely promote its tip line. It introduces a cash reward system designed to incentivize the public to provide information leading to the capture of key figures in these newly identified extremist groups. The directive also encourages the recruitment of informants within political and religious communities to gather intelligence and potentially testify against group members.

In a broader scope, the document reallocates Justice Department funds to bolster state and local “domestic terrorism” initiatives, in essence, compensating local law enforcement for contributing data to the federal system. Klippenstein characterizes this approach as a bounty system, encouraging citizens to report fellow Americans who are suspected of holding and acting upon these flagged views.

“War on Terror” turned inward after Charlie Kirk assassination

NSPM‑7 and Bondi’s memo grew out of the political shock following the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, which Klippenstein says the Trump White House treated as a “9/11‑type event” for the MAGA movement. In his earlier reporting on NSPM‑7, he described the directive as a broad “declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” warning that the administration planned to retool post‑9/11 counterterror powers against ideological opponents at home.

On the Redacted podcast with Clayton and Natalie Morris, Klippenstein warned that Bondi’s memo “is basically creating, in essence, a bounty system for reporting on fellow Americans” and that the criteria sweep in views that are not only legal but explicitly protected. He pointed to language targeting people who “do not have traditional views of family,” non‑Christians, and those who express anti‑capitalist or anti‑ICE sentiments. “Maybe if the focus seems left now, it’s being defined very broadly,” he said, adding that a future administration could easily flip the same machinery against different enemies.

🔥 The DOJ just unveiled a plan to hunt “domestic terrorists” even though the Constitution does not recognize that crime. It is a political label that can be used on anyone with the wrong ideas. @Kenklippenstein is with us. pic.twitter.com/IsWLBPp5In

— Redacted (@RedactedNews) December 18, 2025

Chilling effect and bipartisan danger

Klippenstein said a major Washington law firm, Covington & Burling, recently warned corporate clients that the directive will “have a chilling effect on speech,” signaling alarm even in establishment circles with no activist agenda. He argued that the memo’s power lies less in immediate mass arrests and more in scaring Americans into silence. “The effect we’re already seeing … is it’s going to scare people and make them not want to express things,” he told Redacted, calling that “a big loss” for a country that claims to protect free expression.

The reporter also stressed that both parties have already shown a willingness to stretch “terrorism” labels for domestic political purposes. He pointed to the Biden administration’s handling of January 6, saying it “treated” the riot “essentially as terrorism,” and warned that Trump’s framework will give future administrations a ready‑made apparatus to target their own opponents. Klippenstein said the Justice Department confirmed the authenticity of the FBI leaked memo, yet he noted that corporate media outlets beyond Reuters and The Guardian have largely ignored the story.

While Klippenstein questions whether the courts will meaningfully restrain the new program, given the post‑9/11 legal architecture built for global counterterror operations, he argues that only broad, principled opposition across the political spectrum can check a surveillance regime that now explicitly treats common political, religious and cultural positions as potential terrorism indicators.

bondi_asked_the_fbi_to_identify_extremists_in_leaked_memo