Yes – claims Pam Bondi issued a memo outlining prosecution pathways after Trump’s call to target antifa and nonprofits
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Pam Bondi issued a Dec. 4 memorandum directing the Justice Department and FBI to prioritize investigations into antifa and “antifa-aligned” actors, to compile lists of groups that “may constitute domestic terrorism,” and to pursue a range of criminal statutes — including tax, RICO, fraud and conspiracy charges — where appropriate [1] [2] [3]. The memo instructs agencies to search their files for antifa intelligence within weeks, expand tip lines and even consider reward programs, and is presented by critics as implementing President Trump’s NSPM‑7 domestic‑terrorism policy [4] [5] [6].
1. What the memo actually orders: operational steps and legal tools
Bondi’s eight‑page memorandum directs federal prosecutors, the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces to prioritize “organized political violence” investigations with a particular focus on antifa and similar “extremist groups,” to review and deliver any antifa‑related files to the FBI within a short timeframe, to reopen and refer for prosecution alleged domestic‑terrorism acts from the prior five years, and to seek the “most serious, readily provable offenses” including conspiracy, mail/wire fraud, RICO and tax violations where appropriate [3] [1] [2] [6].
2. How media outlets and watchdogs reported the leak
The memo was obtained and reported by multiple outlets and journalists: Reuters, Bloomberg Law, The Hill and independent journalist Ken Klippenstein published the document or reporting based on it; The Guardian and others highlighted the instruction to search tax referrals and to prioritize counterterrorism grants to certain states [1] [3] [2] [4] [5]. Snopes reviewed the memo and confirmed Bondi’s directive asking the FBI to compile such lists and to pursue serious charges [7].
3. Where this fits in administration policy: NSPM‑7 and Trump’s directives
Bondi’s memo is explicitly framed to implement President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum‑7 (NSPM‑7) on “organized political violence,” tying DOJ actions to the administration’s policy that identifies antifa as a domestic‑terrorism concern; legal analysts say the memo operationalizes NSPM‑7 by directing JTTFs to use “all available investigative tools” and to map networks and funders [6] [3] [1].
4. Legal and practical disputes raised by critics
Civil‑liberties groups and legal observers warn the memo’s broad language risks criminalizing dissent and sweeping in nonprofits or advocacy groups based on ideology rather than conduct; organizations such as Whistleblower Aid and outlets like Democracy Now! and Lawfare framed the memo as a threat to protest and nonprofit activity and a narrowing of post‑Church Committee safeguards [8] [9] [10]. The memo’s critics argue antifa is a decentralized ideology without a traditional organizational structure, making “lists” and RICO‑style approaches legally and practically fraught [2] [3] [10].
5. Proponents’ framing and stated enforcement goals
Proponents within the administration present the memo as a necessary, operational blueprint to combat politically motivated violence: it instructs investigators to prioritize incidents that employ violence or threats to advance political aims and to pursue the gravest, provable offenses; supporters argue these tools are standard prosecutorial options when criminal conduct — not beliefs — is implicated [1] [6] [2].
6. Enforcement mechanisms flagged: tip lines, rewards, grants and intelligence sharing
Bondi ordered the FBI to enhance its tipline (including accepting media), consider a cash reward system for information identifying leadership of domestic terrorist organizations, and asked DOJ grant‑making offices to favor states with anti‑domestic‑terror programs — measures that observers say could broaden sources of referrals and create financial incentives for reporting [6] [5] [11].
7. What the reporting does not (yet) show
Available sources do not mention any final DOJ policy change that legally redefines protected political advocacy as a federal crime; they do not document specific charities or nonprofits already charged under the memo’s guidance, nor do they present court rulings interpreting the memo (not found in current reporting). The sources also do not show a DOJ public statement explaining how it will guard against viewpoint‑based enforcement beyond the text of the memo [1] [3] [7].
8. Why this matters now: political and institutional stakes
The memo converts a presidential policy (NSPM‑7) into prosecutorial instructions at the DOJ level and elevates antifa and left‑leaning ideologies as enforcement priorities; that choice reshapes how intelligence, grants and local‑federal cooperation may flow and raises questions about selective enforcement, grant conditionality and the potential chilling effect on legal advocacy [6] [10] [8].
9. Competing narratives to watch
Journalistic and advocacy sources diverge: mainstream outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, The Hill) emphasize the memo’s concrete directives and legal mechanisms [1] [3] [2], while activist and left‑leaning outlets and legal nonprofits stress potential civil‑liberties harms and politicization of counterterrorism [9] [12] [8]. Independent verification sites like Snopes confirm the memo’s existence and some details but also note the political controversy around interpretation [7].
10. Bottom line and what to read next
Bondi’s memo is a clear, operational order to implement NSPM‑7: it asks DOJ and the FBI to compile lists, expand investigative tools and pursue a wide array of statutes against actors labeled “antifa‑aligned,” while prompting intense debate about civil liberties and the proper scope of domestic‑terrorism enforcement [6] [1] [2]. Follow‑up reporting to watch: DOJ public responses, any prosecutions linked explicitly to the memo, and court challenges that test whether the directives exceed constitutional or statutory bounds [7] [10].