Today’s advertiser is Coactive. Although Beehiiv rules forbid me from asking or encouraging you to click the ad, if you do so, of your own free will and according to your own moral principles, each click will earn me $2.25.

Once upon a time, terrorism was becoming quaint. This was in the 1990s, after the Soviet Union had collapsed, when neoliberalism reigned and the Internet expanded, and for a misguided moment or two it felt like things in this world might be getting better. From this vantage point, terrorism, as it was established from the late 1960s into the mid-1980s, looked like a relic. The kidnappings and hijackings, the targeted murders and indiscriminate bombings, the brilliant branding (the Weather Underground! the Red Army Faction!) and colorful characters (Carlos the Jackal!): They didn’t make sense in this new era. We’d all moved past such earnest and unnuanced tactics. At the large news website I was working for at the turn of the millennium, we put together a project on terrorism, a collection of dossiers of the most notorious folks of the past few decades (yes, Osama bin Laden was on there), and it didn’t feel edgy or insensitive. Terrorism felt like history.

Then, a year or so later, a whole lotta things … happened.

And for the quarter-century since, they’ve kept happening: terrorist attacks, a Global War on Terror, and an ever-shifting anxiety about who might be terrorizing us. Foreign forces or homegrown madmen? Sleeper cells or the newly radicalized? Those to the left of us or those to the right? Those with causes (if not methods) we understand, or those incapable of thought or messaging — or who crib jokes from message boards in place of a true cause? Whatever their methods or positioning, we remain terrified. Whoever they are, the terrorists have won.

And they are going to keep winning, because the U.S. government — or at least the executive branch — is expanding the definition of terrorism once again. It started back in September, in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, when the president signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum, a.k.a. NSPM-7, which directed federal agencies to focus on domestic terrorism, in particular Antifa, whose “‘anti-fascist’ lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties.” Then, earlier this month, attorney general Pam Bondi issued a memo to federal prosecutors, law-enforcement agencies, and Department of Justice “grant-making components” outlining how to implement NSPM-7. In other words, they’re about to go from theory to practice.

And so, whether as a thought exercise or for practical preparation, it’s worth asking: Are you a domestic terrorist now?

We’ll dive into Bondi’s memo after the ad…

Unlike the overblown rhetoric of NSPM-7 (“heinous assassinations,” “evil murder”), Bondi’s memo is mostly clear and restrained. With footnotes, it’s just over six pages long, and provides guidance on eight priorities established in NSPM-7, from “Identifying domestic terrorist organizations” and “Prosecuting the most serious, readily provable offenses” (there are 25 listed) to granting funding to local law enforcement and updating tip lines.

It is, of course, wholly focused on anti-fascist groups and not, say, on the far-right and white-supremacist organizations that have committed the vast majority of violent incidents this century. Here’s a handy few paragraphs from The Conversation:

How typical of this administration to put its energies toward solving 10% to 15% of a problem rather than 75% to 80%! And the memo also engages in willful misinterpretation, claiming that this news report from The Independent, about the debate between Democrats and the White House on whether ICE officers should get to wear masks, is an “opinion piece calling the Trump Administration fascist¹.” But that’s what we all expect from these jokers at this point: weak lies and sloppy misdirection. There’s probably a grift in there, too, if you look hard enough.

But what I want to look hard at is Bondi’s first section, “Defining the domestic terrorism threat.” It begins with a boilerplate definition that has been more or less constant for years: “criminal conduct that occurs primarily inside the territory of the United States and that involves acts dangerous to human life that appear to be intended to intimidate a civilian population; influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.“ (That’s 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5).)

Then the register shifts. “For too long,” the memo says, “rampant criminal conduct rising to the level of domestic terrorism … has been tolerated.” This is key: What had been viewed as merely criminal by previous administrations — riots, attacks on law enforcement, doxxing — are now to be considered terrorism. That’s concerning, especially since what gets labeled a “riot” may often be a protest that’s instigated into violence, since law enforcement has a habit of interpreting observation and recording as interference and attacks, and since doxxing is not even technically illegal.

Two paragraphs follow that basically say, Okay, we’re going to deal with this. Then, in the section’s final paragraph, the memo lists out the “political and social agendas” animating so-called domestic terrorists. Here they are, including where I stand on each of them:

I am definitely opposed to law and immigration enforcement when it is carried out by unidentified, unaccountable masked agents, when it targets people based on the color of their skin or the sound of their accents, and when officers ignore both due process and the evidence presented to them. All of which seems to be happening a hell of a lot these days! I wish I could trust the authorities to behave honorably. But I can’t. You shouldn’t either.

Who even knows what this one means? What is “extreme”? What are “open borders”? At what point does migration become “mass”? All I know is I want migration to this country to continue, including from the places the administration has defined as “shitholes,” and that the government should honor its laws on asylum and provide a consistent, unbiased framework for people to enter through other means. Immigration and immigrants are a net good for this nation — that should be the animating principle, not this bullshit racist fear mongering.

Again, this is poor phrasing, so I don’t know what it means. But when it comes to “gender ideology,” I just don’t care — I don’t care how anyone defines themself, as male, female, nonbinary, or whatever, and I don’t think anyone should care. Let people just be whoever the hell they want to be, as long as no one’s getting hurt. Why waste energy getting upset about who’s in which bathroom? It’s so unfathomably boring, especially when I just want to take a dump. Anyway, if calling everyone “dude” makes me a radical, then bring out the handcuffs.

Um, no. As a famous undertaker once said, I believe in America! I love the idea that this country was founded on ideals, even if they are ideals we have almost always failed to live up to. I want this country to continue, to try to make good on the promises set out in our founding documents. I was born in the birthplace of this country. I’m about as pro-American as you can get. Of course, my idea of America and the administration’s idea of America are pretty damn divergent — the big difference being that my idea accepts that we will have many opinions on the matter, and that we can work it out, while theirs is that I’m wrong and stupid and should just shut up and go away and probably die.

Fuck yeah. Though honestly, not really: I’m hardly a communist, and I’m too practical (and cynical) to believe in most of the newfangled alternatives to our current system. But I do believe in massively regulating the industries that are making life in this country unbearable, and shifting many essential businesses (like health insurance) from the private sphere to the public sector, and I certainly have some feelings about the ultra-rich. To the administration, that probably looks like anti-capitalism. Whatever: I’m not about to give up my 401(k)!

OMG yes. Christianity has made my life, and my family’s life going back at least a couple of centuries (and probably much, much longer), so much more difficult and unpleasant than it needed to be. Wait, let me correct that: Not Christianity but Christians. On one level, I can understand the appeal of Christianity, this idea that we all try and fail to be good people and that there’s a supreme being who forgives those who recognize their failures. That’s nice, right? I mean, if you can believe all the mystical parts of the story, too. (Which I can’t.) But Christians who imagine that their brand of Christianity entitles them to rule the country and the planet and to impose their own warped rules on everyone else? Yes, I am anti that. OMG yes.

Hell no.

“Hostility” doesn’t even begin to describe how I feel about traditional views on family and religion! But morality? This entire newsletter — not just today but the whole Trying! project — is all about morality: understanding how we should behave in a universe of absurdity, where our time is limited and the rules beyond our control. My morality is more than traditional — it’s classical, taking inspiration from the Greeks and Romans and occasionally even my Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. I want to live and act in a way that’s grounded in belief, that’s logically consistent, and that just makes visceral sense. I’d even argue that my sense of morality is, let’s say, at least seven times more traditional than that of the president and his cronies. I’m sorry, does that sound hostile?

This is the big one, right? I’ve explained my position elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here: I favor nonviolence, but I also accept that violence may be necessary to achieve a political outcome. That doesn’t mean I will be violent, or that I endorse any specific (or nonspecific!) acts of violence. But I also don’t decry them out of hand as unnecessary or counterproductive. If fear of violent opposition pushes the powers that be to negotiate with the nonviolent opposition, then I guess I’m okay with that.

And violence is the most important part of defining terrorism. Without it, you’re just looking at a bunch of radical gender ideologues and immoral Democratic Socialists — loathsome but hardly prison fodder. Unless…

My worry now is that what we’ve thought of as “violence” is going to be redefined by the administration to include rude but previously nonviolent actions such as doxxing, protesting, or recording the authorities. In another era, the White House might have needed an act of Congress to make this change, but that’s not how things work anymore: This administration has utter contempt for the law, and for the democratic processes that create and uphold it, and if they want to say that marching with a sign, shooting video of an ICE raid, or, uh, writing a newsletter constitutes a violent act, or material support for violent activists, then they’ll just do that. And nobody will stop them.

So, when I try to tot up my responses above, I’m still not sure where I stand. Am I a terrorist or not? You tell me. After all, it takes one to know one. 🪨🪨🪨

In a food world where crypto bros TikTok caviar bumps, I remain a proud stan for humble salmon roe: salty, sticky, a cluster of ocean bursts — and a whole heckuva lot cheaper than the cured eggs of fancier fish. I love to spoon roe atop latkes, or nestle it in the folds of gravlax on an everything bagel, or just smear it thickly across a small steamy bowl of rice. To ensure you have enough to indulge, seek out a Russian (or Greater Russian) supermarket such as Tashkent, where a whole eight-ounce jar will set you back less than $30.