America First Counterterrorism

The White House’s newly released United States Counterterrorism Strategy (the Strategy) signals a dramatic expansion in how the federal government intends to define, prioritize, and deploy counterterrorism authorities in and outside the United States.

The Strategy builds on themes previewed in earlier U.S. Department of Justice initiatives examined on Enforcement Edge, including National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) and a follow-on implementing memorandum issued by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. Taken together, the Strategy and these recent initiatives reflect a broader trend — namely, the commanded use of national security and counterterrorism frameworks in areas traditionally governed by ordinary criminal or regulatory enforcement mechanisms. Viewed in that context, the Strategy is notable less for any single directive than for consolidating an emerging enforcement trajectory: the migration of counterterrorism tools into domains historically addressed through conventional criminal, regulatory, and civil frameworks.

An Expanded — and Reoriented — Threat Definition

While the Strategy repeatedly emphasizes that counterterrorism authorities should not be “weaponized” for partisan purposes, it simultaneously identifies a broad and ideologically charged set of “violent” domestic actors — in addition to transnational narcotics traffickers and “Legacy Islamist Terrorists” — as potential national security threats. In particular, the Strategy expressly identifies “Violent Left-Wing Extremists,” “Anti-Fascists,” and individuals associated with “radically pro-transgender” ideologies as among the government’s principal counterterrorism priorities. The Strategy further states that the government will use “all the tools constitutionally available” to “map” such groups, identify their membership, and disrupt their operations before they can act.

Operationalizing “All Tools Constitutionally Available”

Although much attention will understandably focus on the political implications of these statements, clients should focus equally on the operational consequences. As discussed in our Blog posts, once conduct is framed through a counterterrorism lens, the U.S. government gains access to an expanded set of investigative, intelligence-sharing, and enforcement authorities that can have substantial downstream effects on businesses, nonprofit organizations, financial institutions, technology platforms, universities, and employers.

The Strategy reflects a view that existing intelligence and enforcement approaches have been “mired in old ways of looking at threats,” and calls for a more integrated model combining military, intelligence, financial, cyber, and law enforcement tools. This convergence matters because counterterrorism authorities often operate differently from traditional criminal investigations. Material support statutes, sanctions regulations, intelligence-collection authorities, and watchlisting mechanisms can create legal and reputational exposure even where no criminal charges are filed.

Designation, Material Support, and Financial Enforcement Risk

One of the most immediate implications of this shift lies in the Strategy’s reliance on designation authorities and financial pressure. The Strategy emphasizes the use of foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designations and related tools to cut off funding and recruiting streams and “[u]ltimately destroy established threat groups.”

Those tools carry significant legal consequences. As we discussed previously in the context of Antifa-associated groups, FTO designation can trigger material support liability under federal law, expand sanctions exposure, and create risk for entities that provide financial, technological, or logistical services — even indirectly — to designated organizations or affiliated networks. In practice, this may affect a broad range of activities, including payment processing, platform services, charitable giving, and supply-chain relationships.

Organizations may increasingly face scrutiny regarding donations, partnerships, online content moderation, vendor relationships, employee conduct, event sponsorships, or communications that investigators believe could intersect with designated organizations or ideologically motivated violence.

Information Operations, Platforms, and Government Engagement

The Strategy also places notable emphasis on counter-propaganda, information operations, and cyber-enabled disruption efforts. Companies operating online platforms, hosting user-generated content, or providing communications infrastructure may therefore encounter heightened government requests for cooperation, preservation demands, or pressure relating to extremist-content enforcement.

Similarly, financial institutions and payment processors should anticipate increased expectations regarding transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting, and sanctions compliance tied not only to traditional international terrorism concerns, but also to emerging domestic extremism investigations.

Domestic Focus and Potential Litigation Constraints

The Strategy opens with a warning that “a new type of domestic terrorism has emerged, driven by violent extremists who have adopted ideologies antithetical to freedom and the American way of life.”

This domestic emphasis — particularly the Strategy’s focus on identifying group membership and mapping networks — may also invite legal challenges. Courts have historically imposed limits on the domestic use of national security authorities, especially where First Amendment or associational rights are implicated.

The Strategy acknowledges this tension, asserting that counterterrorism authorities will not be “weaponized” against Americans. At the same time, its operational directives contemplate activities that may test the boundaries of those constraints.

A Structural Shift in the Counterterrorism Paradigm

The Strategy ultimately reflects a broader policy shift: counterterrorism authorities are no longer confined to overseas battlefields or traditional foreign terrorist or narco-terrorist organizations. Instead, they are increasingly being positioned as flexible domestic enforcement tools. Whether courts ultimately cabin those efforts remains to be seen. But for entities or individuals operating in politically sensitive sectors, the practical takeaway is immediate: conduct once viewed primarily through public-policy or traditional criminal enforcement lenses may now also be assessed through the far more consequential framework of national security and counterterrorism enforcement.

*           *           *

If you have questions about this Enforcement Edge post, please contact the authors or any of their colleagues in Arnold & Porter’s White Collar Defense & Investigations practice group.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.