There was also a Department of Homeland Security document you obtained, and I want to, I want you to kind of walk our audience through what you learned through that document.

Yeah, so FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was established decades ago as an independent agency to respond to the sorts of extreme weather events that we've been seeing more and more of, and that we've seen a lot of just this year.

I live in Wisconsin, and there was a huge tornado that, that, ripped across the center of the state, this last weekend.

FEMA's supposed to, you know, distribute funds and, and, provide a response to these kind of disasters.

But what it's been doing, after the Trump administration signed what's called NSPM-7, is prioritizing domestic terrorism along a set of indicators, and that's sort of, national security speak for signs that they think can predict future terror, attacks or terrorist events.

We- what these documents show is that FEMA is doling out grant money to local law enforcement that, you know, pursues programs that will give them more power to go after these so-called indicators.

And so it's, it's alarming in two ways.

Um, but, you know, can you just talk about that a little bit for some of the younger members of our audience who might not be familiar about what the environment was like in the United States following 9/11?

[upbeat music]

[upbeat music]We are back.

So just at a base level, let's just set the foundation for what that is and how, over the past few months, the Trump administration has been trying to put it into practice and weaponize it.

Okay.

So the Trump administration has prioritized in a way that no other administration, certainly in living memory, maybe ever, has prioritized domestic terrorism as a concern.

So, um, the White House's counterterrorism czar, Sebastian Gorka, a, a couple months ago released the National Counterterrorism Strategy, and in it, it identifies three top priorities.

The first, the, the first one is an unsurprising, it's jihadi groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, um, that kind of thing.

The second one is narco, uh, narcotraffickers, which is obviously a Trump administration focus.

Um, you've been on this from the very beginning, and honestly, I'm wondering how much Sebastian Gorka has to do with drafting this report.

Well, in this case, a lot of the responsibility goes to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, since it was a State Department report, but the, the spirit behind it is, is totally Gorka.

Uh, Gorka released several weeks ago the new national counterterrorism strategy, and in it, he identifies three different groups as priority, uh, counterterror targets.

Uh, the first two aren't particularly surprising.

It's, you know, the traditional, uh, jihadi groups overseas, and then the second one is narco-terrorists, which is a bit more of a focus of the Trump administration's.

But the third one is explicitly, uh, the so-called radical left, and it was the first time in any national counterterrorist strategy, not just that it's identified the left as an area of focus for counterterrorism, but that it's- Identified any American.

This is supposed to be something, um, that we prioritize foreign terror organizations, uh, in going after because it's understood as soon as you label or treat something as terrorism domestically, that doesn't agree with the Constitution and the civil liberties that people are afforded, um, in this country and under our political system.

Mm-hmm

Lay out what happened at the so-called terrorism summit yesterday and what caused you most alarm.

Well, it's an extraordinary event because it pulled in representatives over 65 different countries to discuss the supposed threat of political terrorism.

And that's kind of how it was touted to the press in the run up to the event.

But any pretense that this was going to be a neutral look at the threat of different political groups quickly fell by the wayside.

As they introduced a term which I have never heard before, which is far left terrorism or FLT is the acronym they're using to describe this new purported threat.

And if you look at the language they've used to describe this event, the White House put out an admirably frank press release yesterday describing the event as prioritizing a counterterrorism approach that treats terrorists.

the political left with the same, quote, ferocity as we have fought traditional jihadi groups in the past.

And can the legal basis of being able, of requiring intelligence organizations that are directed abroad to begin to do internal investigations and internal repression within the U.S.?

Lay out what happened at the so-called terrorism summit yesterday and what caused you most alarm.

Well, it's an extraordinary event because it pulled in representatives over 65 different countries to discuss the supposed threat of political terrorism.

And that's kind of how it was touted to the press in the run up to the event.

But any pretense that this was going to be a neutral look at the threat of different political groups quickly fell by the wayside.

As they introduced a term which I have never heard before, which is far left terrorism or FLT is the acronym they're using to describe this new purported threat.

And if you look at the language they've used to describe this event, the White House put out an admirably frank press release yesterday describing the event as prioritizing a counterterrorism approach that treats terrorists.

the political left with the same, quote, ferocity as we have fought traditional jihadi groups in the past.

And can the legal basis of being able, of requiring intelligence organizations that are directed abroad to begin to do internal investigations and internal repression within the U.S.?

Lay out what happened at the so-called terrorism summit yesterday, and what caused you most alarm?

Well, it was an extraordinary event because it pulled in, uh, representatives over 65 different countries to discuss the supposed threat, um, of political terrorism, and that's kind of how it was, um, touted to the press in the run-up to the event.

But any pretense that this was gonna be a neutral look at the threat of different political groups, uh, quickly fell by the wayside as they introduced a term which I have never heard before, which is far-left terrorism, or FLT is the acronym they're using, to describe, uh, this new purported threat.

And if you look at the, um, language they've used to describe this event, the White House put out an admirably frank, um, press release yesterday describing the event, um, as prioritizing a counterterrorism approach that treats, um, the political left with the same, quote, "ferocity" as we have fought, um, traditional jihadi groups in the past.

So they're putting left-wing political groups in the United States and abroad on the same footing as groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

And can the legal basis of, of being able to, of, uh, requiring intelligence organizations that are, uh, directed abroad to begin to do in- internal investigations and internal repression within the US

USYeah, so there's actually no domestic terrorism statute, but that, um, doesn't stop the FBI from using that, um, distinction internally for them to predicate and open investigations into these groups and bringing up charges unrelated to that against the individuals.

And that's an important distinction, um, worth noting, 'cause I think early on the press kind of overlooked, a lot of the mainstream press overlooked the story saying, "Oh, there's no domestic terrorism statute.

Lay out what happened at the so-called terrorism summit yesterday, and what caused you most alarm?

Well, it was an extraordinary event because it pulled in, uh, representatives over 65 different countries to discuss the supposed threat, um, of political terrorism, and that's kind of how it was, um, touted to the press in the run-up to the event.

But any pretense that this was gonna be a neutral look at the threat of different political groups, uh, quickly fell by the wayside as they introduced a term which I have never heard before, which is far-left terrorism, or FLT is the acronym they're using, to describe, uh, this new purported threat.

And if you look at the, um, language they've used to describe this event, the White House put out an admirably frank, um, press release yesterday describing the event, um, as prioritizing a counterterrorism approach that treats, um, the political left with the same, quote, "ferocity" as we have fought, um, traditional jihadi groups in the past.

So they're putting left-wing political groups in the United States and abroad on the same footing as groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

And can the legal basis of, of being able of, of, requiring intelligence organizations that are, are directed abroad to begin to do in- internal investigations and internal repression within the US?

Yeah, so there's actually no domestic terrorism statute, but that, um, doesn't stop the FBI from using that, um, distinction internally for them to predicate and open investigations into these groups and bringing up charges unrelated to that against the individuals.

And that's an important distinction, um, worth noting, 'cause I think early on the press kind of overlooked...

Unfortunately, it's happening.

Yeah, it took about a year for the gears of justice to turn.

They moved slowly, as I warned at the time.

But what we're seeing is the first fruits from this massive federal, frankly, war on political opponents of the Trump administration.

You mentioned it earlier, NSPM 7, National Security Presidential Memorandum.

And what that is, is it's a strategy directive that tells all the federal government, national security, state, the federal law enforcement, but also groups like Treasury, that they need to prioritize these, not just left-wing groups, but really anything that isn't MAGA, you know, things that events... anti-Christian sentiment, anti-traditional family value sentiment, extreme views on immigration.

And that's exactly what we're seeing here.

He's the guy that the Department of Justice sent down there to put away for hundreds of years, the so-called Antifa terrorists, based upon him as an expert witness.

Um, so what does it do? Why is it so harmful even if it's not codified?

Yeah.

It lets the FBI and other federal agencies start to collect intelligence and pull together things, basically predicate investigations absent a crime.

Counterterrorism is kind of a propaganda word.

I try to avoid using it in my articles because what it is is a euphemism for pre-crime, which is, an actual crime has not been committed.

Typically, when you're, you know, law enforcement, what you're trying to do is find, okay, here's the evidence of the crime that's been committed.

And like you're saying, they can point to a statute or, or, or law that was... that they think was broken, pull together evidence, present it to a judge.

But this is so much more formal, and it's almost like, it al- it's almost like they're sprinting to criminalize activism because they got a test run the first time at how they can use the tools of the federal government in this way.

So why is this joint mission with Israel, uh, shrouded in secrecy?

Because of what it's part of, which is, um, what that war planner who I quote in the story you just mentioned told me, which is a contingency plan for going into Iran, like, within their territory, um, seizing nuclear material, and also seizing Kharg Island, which controls a large portion of Iran's oil infrastructure.

And so the question is, uh, as, you know, people have [laughs] people asked in response to the story, "Okay, w- why would they put them in Israel? It's so far away.

Why not put it somewhere closer?" Because Israel is the only country that the US can assume will be okay with launching an attack from.

If they did it from Qatar, if they did it from, you know, the UAE, if they did it from any, virtually any other country in the region, they wouldn't tolerate it because Iran would respond and they would respond with a lot of force.

So Israel's the only country that they could, uh, launch the planes from where they would carry out, uh, you know, a raid-style targeted operation of that sort.

And like I said, there's been no debate about this because the Pentagon has just said, "Oh, we're sending them to the Middle East," like, broadly.

Mm-hmm.

... have of being shut out.

So I had a very visceral reaction to Platner, who I'm actually critical of in the story.

I don't, you know, love.

I call him a dumbass [laughs] in the story, but something that I- I'm a national security reporter primarily.

That's what I cover in the newsletter, and I know former Marines, and his story sounds, I'm not gonna say like most Marines are like that, but it sounds very common.

Like, I know several Marines.

Uh, like getting a tattoo that, a- again, I can't read his mind, I don't know what he was thinking at the time, but the idea that you're a 19-year-old getting a tattoo and you don't know what it means, that's, a lot of Marines are like that.

Yeah.

... have of being shut out.

So I had a very visceral reaction to Plattner, who I'm actually critical of in the story.

I don't, you know, love.

I call him a dumbass [laughs] in the story.

But something that I am a national security reporter primarily, that's what I cover in the newsletter, and I know former Marines, and his story sounds...

I'm not gonna say like most Marines are like that, but it sounds very common.

Like, I know several Marines.

Yeah

So, uh, let's just do a real quick refresher, right? Because we have covered the NSPM-7, uh, story that you did earlier, but for those who might have missed it, tell us a little more about that.

Yeah, so NSPM-7 stands for National Security Presidential Memorandum 7.

It was, uh, signed into law by President Trump, and it is a directive that, long story short, um, defines a number of so-called indicators of future acts of terrorism, and those indicators include extremely broad categories like anti-Christian sentiment, anti-traditional family value sentiment, and, uh, extreme views on immigration.

I mean, these are huge, uh, categories.

What it does, it tells the entire federal government, "Hey, guys, we're gonna prioritize this for the rest of the administration.

Make your FBI make cases around this.

Treasury, go through their tax returns.

What happens then?

Yep

... and Christianity, which, you know, echoed in my mind is, uh, Trump's National Security Directive, NSPM-7, in which he defines speech-based predictors of future acts of terrorism as being in part anti-Christian sentiment.

And so I don't know if that's what's ricocheting around in Trump's head, if he's trying to, you know, bolster the case that he made in that, uh, directive, or I don't know what's going on.

But he said that, and I looked at the, um, manifesto that the attempted, um, assassin, uh, uh, put out or has been reported, and what's amazing is there's like four separate references to Christianity, um, and he's contextualizing the entire act as, uh, a Christian act, and he's like quoting scripture.

Like, this is heavy theological stuff that he's writing in that.

And when I talked to his former, uh, classmates at Caltech, they said that this was a longstanding thing, that, uh, Christianity was central to his life and his personality, very certain...

So there's absolutely zero evidence that he was anti-Christian, and what's more, there's a ton of evidence that he was extremely Christian.

Mm-hmm

Right.

But a lot of the posts were cached and I realized not only is this guy not anti-Christian, at least from his point of view, this guy is a devout be- like, Christianity was central to his, um, to his worldview, and not just...

Uh, right up until the week of the shooting, he's making posts, uh, citing, uh, reve- the Book of Revelations and comparing Trump to the Antichrist and, you know, all these things I don't agree with, but it's like clearly, um, you know, embedded in the Christian, uh, eschatology.

And, um, that wasn't just some momentary thing where he, you know, had a dalliance with religion.

It- he was the head of, uh, some Protestant, uh, Christian chapter while he was at Caltech as an undergraduate.

And when I interviewed his friends, I always just go out and I say, "Anybody who wants to talk to me, I will...

Anything I can verify I will publish.

Right.

Are they, like, pointing at this guy because there is so little there? Like, are we watching, um, some type of undermining of this process by people internal in DHS by sort of pointing to, like, somebody who is clearly not associated with any, with anything like that?

Well, so they're limited by whatever legal architecture allows them to target American citizens, which is more difficult than what you can do to foreigners.

So one of the, one of the excuses or pretexts they've used to, to do so is what's called force protection.

So once you've deployed ICE somewhere, you have a, um, legal ability to protect them from purported threats, and so basically what they're doing is they're looking at the area, because, uh, his apartment is, you know, right near where an ICE facility is, and they're saying, "Oh, we've got to map out threats to ICE personnel." And I'm sure they could come up with some example somewhere of, you know, somebody who got a window broken or, or something and say, and say, "Oh, actually, what we're doing here, we're just mapping out threats, so this is about defending the ICE presence there." But the problem with that is that you have an ICE presence in every state.

There's a field office in every state in the country, and in addition to that, they're surging all these resources and getting in situations that predictably result in a civil response, protesters, unrest, that kind of thing.

So this- so they've kind of created the conditions under which they can then say, "Oh, we've got to protect our guys, so that's why we're gonna collect intelligence on these people." And in fact, the Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Trish McLaughlin, in a statement, um, responding to a story I had on a watch list that DHS has produced and w- whether they're adding US citizens-...

um, to it, she responds, she says, "We don't keep a watch list," but then in the next sentence, it's kind of the tell, she says, "But we do protect our assets from threats." She says something along those lines.

Um, it's what makes some of these, like, s- s- responses by civilians, uh, in these different cities so remarkable, is that they've basically given them very little in terms of pretext, so they're resorting to these kind of pathetic tactics like this.

Mm

... interesting to talk to them because the admin is very triumphalist about all this.

"We're never gonna back down, and, and this is so popular." Uh, al- virtually all the guys I talk to think this is a disaster for the agency, that long term it's gonna just destroy the reputation of it, and that they won't be able to do what, frankly, a lot of them, you know, believe in, which is, um, prioritizing violent felons.

I mean, there's a range of attitudes.

Some of them want to just, you know, deport anyone who, uh, is here without legal status.

But a lot of them also, you know, they have this cop mentality of like, "I signed up to fight, like, cartels, and like, I hope that I can get sort of these powerful people that we want to remove from the country, and now it's like I have to go and deal with protesters and crowd control? And, and it's like, I would have signed up for the National Guard or something like that if I wanted to do that.

I don't want to do that." It's just...

You g- obtained this memo, so tell us what this means.

How seriously should the ave- should the average person be taking this?

Well, there's a continuum of ways that they can go about, um, executing something like that.

At the really extreme end, they can do what they're doing to people like James Comey and, and drag them in and, and, you know, bring the force of the federal law enforcement, FBI, and DOJ against him.

But at the, at the earlier end of the continuum, which, uh, which is what we're already seeing, they can just make people's lives hell, and they can have a chilling aspect- effect on speech.

I've interviewed protesters who have gotten visits from the FBI, not accused of any crime, not indicted for anything, and, um, and any...

You know, it frustrates me 'cause you have these legal experts go on...

Uh, there was one, there was a former Justice Department person that went on MSNBC recently, and she was like, "Well, these charges will never stand up in court.

How would you sort of describe the media ecosystem reacting to these things?

And so this is grounds for them to find that Renee Good and her partner were essentially domestic terrorists.

Well, NSPM-7's fingerprints are all over this because if you, uh, go, and again, the document is public, you can read it, they describe anti-ICE sentiment and threats to ICE as terrorism.

And there was a follow-on directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi, which explicitly mentions the de- uh, details that describe the incident perfectly.

Uh, it talks about threats to ICE agent a- as including, um, what it, quote, "impeding or interfering with ICE operations," um, which, to be clear, is legal.

Um, but they've cast it now as some kind of domestic terror threat to the officers, which, if you watch the video, um, you can say that, you know, her car being parked was blocking things, but there's just no evidence.

I mean, uh, I don't see how anyone can watch that and say that there was some kind of violent intent there.

I j- I, I just don't know what to say about that.

I mean, we can see in their behavior, since you wrote the first piece on the 9th, that their answer has been double down.

What do they reveal, these documents?

This is maybe the most alarming part of this entire story for me, was seeing that they have not changed the use of force policies for ICE whatsoever since Trump came into office, despite the fact that, again, they have tripled the budget for the enforcement part of it.

And in addition to that, just militarized the entire thing.

They're wearing masks.

They're being deployed in states where the majority of the state population doesn't.

support them.

They're being used in a far more aggressive, sweeping, and ambitious manner than ever before.

Can you put these latest developments in perspective?

Ken Klippenstein, are we seeing some changes in Democrats' positions here?

here?...

Absolutely, um, among Democratic voters.

Among Congress, there is some opposition, but among congressional leadership, they've made it very clear that they are not willing to shut down the government over this.

They asked Senator Cory Booker this, for instance, yesterday on MS Now, and he said, "No, the last shutdown didn't work." Chuck Schumer had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to even do the shutdown earlier this year to play hardball with the Republicans after he, um, folded instantly at the beginning of the, uh, Trump- second Trump administration.

So, um, there are definitely splits within the caucus, but among leadership, there's opposition to the idea.

That being said, among the public, there's been a sea change in opinion with respect to ICE and the deportations.

Ken, you've also read ICE's deadly force documents, uh, that you say, quote, "are bureaucratically dense and elastic to the extreme, offering every possible excuse for ICE's killing of Rene Good, but they're also stark in their failure to address any aspect of the dramatically new environment created by ICE's expanded mission." Um, what do they reveal, these documents?

So, tell us a little bit about the origin of this document and whatever sources you'd like to reveal.

Yeah.

So I think h- how crazy it sounds on its face is part of the reason it's got so little attention in the mainstream press.

I think only Reuters has written about it, and The Guardian, a British publication.

Um, but I put the document right there.

People can go and read it for themselves.

The Justice Department actually, uh, confirmed its authenticity just yesterday, so there's no question that, that this is happening.

It, I mean, it really is only the courts that can take this power away right now.

So explain the significance of this, Ken Klippenstein.

It essentially takes NSPM 7, which advances the view that the major threat of terrorism is coming from these anti-Trump sentiments, and it puts it into effect.

It uses tools available to the federal government and federal law enforcement in particular to For example, it directs the FBI to go through its past half decade or so of intelligence on Antifa and on some of these other groups I've been talking about and tells them to make criminal cases around those and to circulate intelligence about it.

And part of that intelligence... production effort involves soliciting tips from the public, getting people to narc on their fellow citizens who are evincing this anti-Trump sentiment.

So in one case, it tells the FBI to upgrade and kind of supercharge its tip system so that they can get this flow of information coming in from informants all over the country reporting on threats like these.

for the architect of this memo, do you believe of the NSPM seven?

I would say it's not a person so much as an incident, which was the murder of Charlie Kirk.

As national security officials described to me shortly after the murder, the very next day there was a war room convened.

So, (clears throat) explain the significance of this, Ken Klippenstein.

It essentially takes NSPM-7, um, which a- advances the view that, uh, the, the, a major threat of terrorism is coming from these, you know, anti-Trump, um, sentiments, and it puts it into effect.

It uses tools available to the federal government and federal law enforcement in particular, um, for example, it, uh, directs the FBI to go through its past half decade or so of intelligence, um, on antifa, and on some of these other groups I've been talking about and tells them to make criminal cases around those and to circulate intelligence about it, um, and part of that intelligence, uh, production effort involves soliciting tips from the public, getting people to narc on their, uh, fellow citizens who are evincing this, uh, anti-Trump sentiment.

So, in one case, it tells the FBI to upgrade and kind of supercharge its, um, t- uh, its, its tip system so that they can get this flow of information coming in from informants all over the country, um, reporting on, on threats like these.

Who is the architect of this memo, do you believe, of the NSPM-7?

I would say it's not a, a person so much as an incident, which was the m- murder of Charlie Kirk, um, as national security officials described to me, uh, shortly after the murder, the very next day there was a, um, war room convened by the White House, um, and I think kind of unofficially taking point on this was, uh, President Trump's Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, um, and he kind of orchestrated along with all these other n- national security appointees, how are we gonna respond to this? And the decision was made that we would make anti-Trump sentiment tantamount to this terrorist threat and we're gonna prosecute it, um, as such.

So I guess I would say if I was to point to one single person, I would say Stephen Miller.

But this is really, um, a- an attitude held by a lot of people in the administration, which I think is genuine fear in the wake of that shooting, that something like that might happen to them, and so we have to, um, create a, a response, and what that is, is essentially, um, the same sort of response to 9/11, but in this case it's in, uh, it's, it's directed at Americans with a-

Talk to us about your piece, Ken.

Yeah, so it seems clear that, uh, the Trump administration is going to exploit people's concerns about national security, uh, generally, of which the president has all kinds of authorities and privileges.

He's gonna invoke those powers to prevent as much of the Epstein files from being released as possible, and that's clear from not just Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson's, uh, comments that you played earlier, but also a document that, as was described to me, is being circulated on the Hill as sort of talking points that they wanted to try to stress.

It sounds like a lot of the Republicans didn't listen to it.

[laughs] I think they're under so much pressure, um, not just from their base, but the general American public.

There's polling suggesting 90% of Americans think that all of the Epstein files should be released, not just certain ones, all of them.

So they're under enormous pressure, and because of that, I think we saw [laughs] pretty much one guy echo the concerns laid out in that document, which listed, uh, what it described as five different, uh, they called it flaws with the legislation that, uh, ironically ended up passing with [laughs] Speaker Johnson's vote.

Your biology decoded, your blueprint activated with SuperPower.