In a development that has sent shockwaves through activist circles and civil rights organizations, recent revelations show that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has launched a sweeping series of criminal and domestic terrorism investigations connected to protests and campaigns targeting U.S. immigration enforcement. According to The Guardian and Common Dreams, these investigations are taking place in at least 23 jurisdictions across the country, and they stem from a new national security directive known as National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), signed by President Donald Trump on September 25, 2025.
NSPM-7 orders a national strategy to "investigate and dismantle networks and organizations that promote political violence." In response, an internal FBI report was drafted on November 14, 2025, outlining how the agency would pursue criminal and domestic terrorism cases against what it describes as "threats against immigration enforcement activity." These threats, according to the memo, include not just physical attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and personnel, but also messages, pressure campaigns, and the organization of protests—activities that, in the agents' view, could potentially lead to violence.
The scope of the FBI's investigations is broad. The internal report, as described by The Guardian, lists "indicators" that agents are to monitor, such as the use of encrypted applications to discuss ICE, the "stockpiling or distribution of firearms," and even "conducting online searches" about the movements and addresses of immigration agents. This approach effectively blurs the line between digital self-protection or citizen monitoring and what law enforcement now views as potential preparations for attacks.
According to a joint intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there has been an "escalation" of violence compared to previous years. The bulletin, obtained by CBS News, cites at least two recent attacks on detention centers and ICE offices in Texas, as well as damage to facilities in other states. While vandalism was more common in the past, these recent incidents have prompted federal agencies to argue that more aggressive monitoring and intervention are necessary.
However, this new focus has alarmed civil rights advocates and legal experts, who warn that the broad definition of "domestic terrorism" under NSPM-7 could be used as a pretext to monitor and target protest movements that operate well within the boundaries of the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been particularly vocal, with Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, telling The Guardian, "[The FBI document] is infused with vague and overbroad language, which was exactly our concern about NSPM-7 in the first place. It invites law enforcement suspicion and investigation based on purely First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities." Shamsi added, "People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation. That imposes stigma. It can wrongly [enmesh] people in the criminal legal system."
The ACLU and other civil liberties groups argue that the use of terrorism designations and counterterrorism tools against pro-immigrant activists represents a qualitative leap in the criminalization of protest. They warn that these measures may jeopardize freedoms of expression, association, and assembly protected by the Constitution. Moreover, NSPM-7 allows for the investigation and potential sanctioning of NGOs, foundations, and donors that fund groups deemed "radical," raising concerns about the impact on organizations supporting migrants, court observers, and those documenting abuses by ICE and other immigration agencies.
Further fueling these concerns, The Guardian reported that the FBI had infiltrated and monitored a Signal chat group of migrant rights activists in New York, using a confidential source with "excellent access." This revelation has reinforced allegations that political organizing—activity protected by the Constitution—is being actively surveilled by federal authorities. Pro-migrant groups cited by Common Dreams argue that such surveillance, coupled with the use of the term "terrorism," is intended to intimidate volunteers, churches, lawyers, and Latino communities that assist newcomers and document abuses in ICE detention centers.
The backdrop to these investigations is a period of intensified immigration enforcement: increased raids, expedited deportations, and mounting reports of poor conditions in detention centers. According to the joint DHS and FBI bulletin, thousands of Latin American migrants, including Cubans, are currently in ICE custody awaiting their hearings or deportation as of December 2025. The heightened scrutiny and expanded definition of "domestic terrorism" under NSPM-7 have left many activists and community members fearful that even peaceful solidarity with migrants or criticism of immigration policies could be construed as a security threat.
Privacy advocates and legal scholars have echoed these fears, noting that the new guidelines consider activities such as using encrypted messaging apps to discuss ICE, stockpiling or distributing firearms (even legally), and conducting online research about agents as indicators of potential terrorism. Critics say these criteria are so broad and vague that they could ensnare innocent people—those simply exercising their right to protest or seeking to protect their privacy in an increasingly surveilled world.
The Trump administration's broader national security posture has also come under scrutiny. The designation of antifa, or anti-fascism, as a terrorist organization, along with the investigations into anti-ICE activity, is seen by many as an attempt to clamp down on any protests or dissent against administration policies. As The Guardian notes, the FBI document and NSPM-7 appear aimed at justifying federal law enforcement actions against the president's political opposition, all under the banner of fighting terrorism.
In fact, a map included in the FBI's internal report shows that, in over 30 states, the agency has opened cases related to anti-ICE activity or under the auspices of NSPM-7. This nationwide sweep has stoked fears among activists that the government is using the specter of terrorism to chill dissent and discourage participation in protest movements.
Legal experts warn that the trend toward labeling dissent as terrorism could have a chilling effect on activism, especially in Latino and Caribbean communities. As highlighted in academic analyses and echoed by Common Dreams, the possibility that solidarity with migrants or criticism of immigration policies might be viewed through the lens of "domestic terrorism" raises the legal and personal costs of participating in campaigns and mobilizations against ICE.
For now, the debate continues to rage. On one side, federal agencies insist that the escalation in violence justifies their expanded surveillance and investigative tactics. On the other, civil rights organizations and privacy advocates warn that the very foundations of free speech and assembly are at risk. The coming months will likely see further legal challenges and public scrutiny as the nation grapples with where to draw the line between security and civil liberties.
