The leaked memorandum attributed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi makes explicit what many trans people and their allies have already experienced for years: online speech about gender identity has become a potential trigger for surveillance, investigation and punishment by the state.
According to reporting by Amelia Hansford, Bondi instructed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to explore a “cash reward system” that would incentivize members of the public to provide information on groups or individuals allegedly promoting what her office labels “radical gender ideology.”
The memo frames such activity as connected to “domestic terrorist groups” and situates advocacy around gender identity within a broader national security response.
The memorandum, issued Dec. 4, follows a National Security Presidential Memorandum signed by Donald Trump that directs federal agencies to combat what he has repeatedly described as the “enemy within.”
The guidance urges aggressive investigations, referrals to Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and the use of expansive federal criminal statutes, and it explicitly calls for the establishment of a cash reward system for information leading to arrests related to domestic terrorism investigations .
The document’s language does not distinguish between violence and constitutionally protected speech. Instead, it places “radical gender ideology” alongside political beliefs allegedly hostile to “traditional views on family, religion, and morality,” collapsing peaceful advocacy into the same framework used for organized political violence.
In doing so, it signals that trans activists could be treated not as speakers exercising First Amendment rights, but as potential security threats.
Civil liberties advocates were blunt in their response.
The American Civil Liberties Union described the underlying presidential memorandum, known as NSPM-7, as a “fever dream of conspiracies” and “outright falsehoods,” arguing that its purpose is to silence Trump’s political opponents rather than address genuine threats.
The memo also references the September assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, including engravings found on bullet casings near the scene. Experts cited in contemporaneous coverage cautioned that the messages did not reliably indicate political ideology and may have been intended to mislead investigators.
Jamie Cohen, an assistant professor of media studies at Queens College, told Sky News that the inscriptions could function as “doublespeak,” muddying rather than clarifying motive.
Despite those cautions, the administration has repeatedly suggested a connection between trans identity and domestic extremism. In September, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was “worth looking into” claims of a rise in what she called “transgender violence.”
There is no factual basis for that claim. Michael Jensen, research director at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses, told USA Today there is “no evidence” that trans people are disproportionately responsible for mass violence. Jensen said that among more than 1,000 mass casualty plots tracked since 2023, those involving trans individuals could be counted on “less than one hand.”
Taken together, these statements and policies create a chilling effect that extends far beyond those engaged in activism. When advocacy is framed as terrorism, and when cash rewards are proposed for informing on vaguely defined ideological activity, ordinary online discussion becomes fraught with risk. For trans people, whose existence is already politicized, the message is unmistakable: visibility itself may invite scrutiny.
This is not a hypothetical concern. History shows that broad national security frameworks, once established, are rarely confined to their original targets. Surveillance tools introduced in the name of counterterrorism have long been repurposed against social movements, journalists and political dissidents. The memo’s emphasis on tips, informants and cooperation underscores that reality.
In that environment, to speak openly about trans lives, health care or rights online is no longer merely an exercise in free expression. It is an act that may carry legal, professional and personal consequences. That reality should trouble anyone who values civil liberties, regardless of where they stand on gender politics.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
This reminds me of when the Southern Poverty Law Center labelled Moms for Liberty as “anti-government extremist groups”. Did the Vanguard cry foul then?
DOJ is the government
Where’s the leaked memo. What does it state exactly? I don’t want someone’s interpretation of it.
Remember this from Biden’s DOJ and Merrick Garland:
“In light of the disturbing revelation that the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division created a “threat tag” based on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s October 4 memorandum, Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding that Garland finally withdraw that memo and make clear that the law enforcement arms of the federal government do not equate concerned parents with domestic terrorists.”
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-republicans-to-garland-are-concerned-parents-domestic-terrorists-or-not
So all you’re doing is attempting to both sides this issue
All you’re doing is looking the other way at the hypocrisy of your side.
That’s not a defense of current policy
Where’s the actual memo?
I don’t want someone’s interpretation of it because we know how that goes.
It’s linked at the bottom of the article.
Where in the report does it say they will go after people for discussing trans issues online?
The short answer is: it does not say that—at least not explicitly. There is no passage in the memo that states federal authorities will investigate or prosecute people simply for discussing trans issues online.
What the memo does say—and where the concern arises—is more indirect and structural:
The memo repeatedly states that investigations will not be initiated solely on the basis of ideology or First Amendment–protected activity, which includes speech, advocacy, and online discussion. On its face, that disclaimer means discussion of trans issues online, by itself, is not a target.
However, elsewhere in the document the memo defines a broad category of conduct that can trigger domestic terrorism scrutiny when paired with certain ideologies, including what it labels “radical gender ideology.” That conduct includes intimidation, harassment, doxing, swatting, interference with law enforcement or public officials, coordinated pressure campaigns, and efforts to influence government policy through what authorities characterize as disruptive or coercive means. The memo directs law enforcement to use expansive investigative tools—intelligence reviews, network mapping, tip lines, and rewards—when they believe such conduct is present.
The gap, and the source of alarm, is that the memo never draws a clear line between protected online advocacy and alleged intimidation or interference, and it leaves those determinations almost entirely to law enforcement discretion. Online speech that is framed by investigators as “coordinated,” “harassing,” or “interfering”—for example, mass social media campaigns, call-in efforts, or public criticism of officials—could, under the memo’s logic, become part of an investigation if authorities assert a connection to the listed behaviors. The memo does not provide examples, safeguards, or thresholds that clearly protect online discussion from being recharacterized in this way.
So, to answer the question precisely: the report never says “we will go after people for discussing trans issues online.” What it does instead is define an ideological category that encompasses trans-related activism, pair it with broadly defined forms of “intimidation” and “interference,” and authorize counterterrorism-style investigations when law enforcement claims those elements overlap. The risk comes from that discretionary overlap—not from an explicit directive targeting online discussion itself.
In my opinion you’re doing a lot of bobbing and weaving in your explanation in order to get there. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
You were expecting something explicitly spelled out?
Knowing how Trump’s words are often twisted and spun to make it look like he said something that he didn’t I figured this was probably the same thing. So I’m not surprised from reading the explanations that it takes a stretch to get there. Was it just an oversight or did you purposely leave out that the referenced article came from PinkNews?
“The House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim report Tuesday, pertaining to its investigation into the FBI’s alleged targeting of parents at school board meetings.”
“It is apparent that the Biden Administration misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political purposes,” the Judiciary Committee’s interim report argues.
This weaponization of law-enforcement powers against American parents exercising their First Amendment rights is dangerous,” the report goes on. “The Justice Department subjected moms and dads to the opening of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file that includes their political views, and the application of a ‘threat tag’ to their names as a direct result of their exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and advocate for their children.”
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-21-school-board-documents-interim-report.pdf
Exactly. The Davis Unified school district has also served me with three different 14-day no trespass orders after I have questioned teachers and principals about gender indoctrination in Davis schools, including the trans flag in my son’s chemistry class at Back to School Night at Davis High. I was also served with a bogus restraining order that required me to retain legal counsel (Harmeet Dhillon Law Group) before the school district withdrew the TRO.
Why is it okay for public school officials to attack my free speech when I was speaking out on girls’ sports and the gender industry? Why didn’t the Vanguard report on it then?
Or why didn’t the Vanguard condemn “Joanna” Sodke’s behavior when he punched me in the back of the head at the TPUSA event at UC Davis last April? Other masked students stole my gender critical signs, including “Why are so many girls having double mastectomies?”
Why wasn’t the Davis Vanguard at the Yolo County courthouse in November for Sodke’s arraignment hearing? The SacBee and other local TV news outlets were in the courtroom.
So you lead with a bs analogy that you can’t even defend and then make a lot of demands.
The memo treats “radical gender ideology” as an extremist ideology rather than a protected identity, grouping it with opposition to immigration enforcement, anti-capitalism, anti-American sentiment, and hostility toward what it calls traditional views on family, religion, and morality, without offering any legal or narrow definition, thereby framing it as a broad ideological category rather than a precise criminal designation.
It asserts that actors motivated by this ideology are willing to engage in violence, threats, intimidation, or disruptive conduct to influence government policy, silence opposing speech, or interfere with law enforcement, and instructs federal agencies to treat such alleged conduct as a priority domestic terrorism matter.
The memo further frames the ideology as driving opposition to law enforcement and democratic governance, claiming that confrontational or disruptive actions associated with it threaten public safety and the functioning of democratic institutions.
When the ideology is present in an alleged offense, the document authorizes enhanced surveillance and investigation, including retrospective intelligence reviews, compilation of organizational lists, mapping of networks of organizers and supporters, and dissemination of intelligence bulletins to law enforcement partners.
Although the memo formally disclaims investigations based solely on ideology or First Amendment–protected activity, it preserves broad enforcement discretion by defining qualifying conduct—such as intimidation, interference, or coordinated protest—so expansively that activism associated with “radical gender ideology” could be drawn into domestic terrorism investigations whenever authorities assert a connection to those behaviors.
So where’s the actual memo?
“According to reporting by Amelia Hansford”
Why didn’t you tell your readers Amelia Hansford works for PinkNews?
“Amelia Hansford is a News Reporter for PinkNews and, currently, the website’s only trans Editorial journalist.”
https://www.thepinknews.com/author/amelia-hansford/
PinkNews is a joke. They’ve written multiple articles about my activism and gender critical views.
“It asserts that actors motivated by this ideology are willing to engage in violence, threats, intimidation, or disruptive conduct to influence government policy, silence opposing speech, or interfere with law enforcement, and instructs federal agencies to treat such alleged conduct as a priority domestic terrorism matter.”
Some of them do exactly that. We have a local example of it in action (tires slashed, verbal and physical assaults, etc.). As well as interference in the local school board recall in Woodland, though that’s certainly within anyone’s right to do so.
There’s also serious cases where the alleged perpetrators “happen to be” trans-identified – including one in the Bay Area. It was extensively covered in The Chronicle.
They also engage in other legal (but morally questionable) activities, such as trying to get people fired, removed from their politically-oriented booth at the Davis Farmer’s market using questionable allegations, etc.
Of course, all of this (locally) goes back to a librarian trying to prevent the use of the phrase “biological male” (and/or a word or phrase similar to that). Or at least, that’s when I noticed it.
YEP. Fortunately, the excellent attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom offered to represent me and the other 4 women speakers and our organizations pro-bono after the Davis library manager shut down our Fair Sports for Girls event in August of 2023. Of course, Yolo County settled for $70k rather than risk further humiliation in the courtroom for violating our free speech.
“Some of them do exactly that.”
Let’s not forget that Charlie Kirk’s killer had a transgender partner. How much did that influence Tyler Robinson’s actions?
Your framing is incendiary because it commits a basic causal fallacy and does so in a way that targets a marginalized group. And you have done so in an irresponsible and speculative way.
It provides a likely motive.
There’s nothing irresponsible about noting that.
The “irresponsible” part comes in when others try to take action based on something like that.
You could say the same thing about media coverage, movies, social media, etc., encouraging violence in general.
I would say that most normal people don’t do such things, but I’ve seen some altercations directed against our local “anti-trans” activist which causes me to question “who”, exactly, I view as “normal”.
And she is not the only one on the receiving end of some of that type of thing. I’ve witnessed it directed against others, as well.
Lots of anger underneath a facade of tolerance, I guess.
It does not. It’s sheer speculation.
Yeah – I’m sure the guy with a trans boyfriend didn’t hold anything against Charlie Kirk. Must have been some other reason.
Interestingly-enough, I don’t recall Charlie Kirk attacking that community, though I’m reasonably sure he did not believe that others were “trans”.
Personally, I don’t view those with Kirk’s view as much of a threat to anyone, because much of it was based on religious beliefs (for better or worse). And when you don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky in the first place . . .
In order to establish an actual link you would have to have a trained psychiatrist actually interview problem both the suspect and their partner. Likely both the prosecution and defense with hire their own experts to assess the psychological state of the suspect – that is the proper way to assess the situation.
Here is my view based on the latest evaluation of the case: There is no evidence that a partner’s gender identity influenced Robinson’s actions. Millions of people have transgender partners and do not commit violence. Responsibility rests solely with the individual who committed the act, and analysis should be grounded in verified facts, not insinuation by association.
I don’t know if “millions of people” have transgender partners.
But it appears to me that there’s an effort to downplay speculation (that I suspect most people already think). Seems to me that you’re attempting to do so right now.
Sort of like how media downplays attacks (or emphasizes) assaults based on skin color of perpetrator and/or victim.
Societal dishonesty with the cooperation of media, apparently driven by fear. Which also brings into question the role of media in the first place.
It’s becoming harder to control the message since the Internet and social media, however. Which is apparently leading to more divisiveness within media itself.
We no longer have Walter Cronkite telling us (probably largely/accurately), “that’s the way it is”. (Except for the fake moon landing, of course. Yes, that’s a joke.)
You’re just doubling down on your speculation at this point.
I’m not “doubling down” on it. I’ve always suspected that this was a primary motivation. So do most people, I suspect. Probably even most trans people and progressives in general.
I also suspect that most trans people (and certainly their political allies) think of themselves as “progressives”. There’s reasons for that (e.g., many conservatives come from a religious background which doesn’t accept transgenderism).
The difference (between you and me) is that you think that the motivation in this case is important, while I do not. Though it’s likely a manifestation of societal division.
Of course you are, you have a small number of facts and your disposal and the rest is speculation. No matter how well you can articulate it, it’s still speculation based on a small number of facts. There’s a reason why psychologists are mandated to actually conduct interviews with the subjects.
You seem to have more faith in “hired guns” (and the psychological profession) than I do. In any case, you’re going to get two different answers here – we already know that.
So, it will ultimately come back to common sense, again.
But let me ask you again – what difference does it make, regarding motivation?
In other words, what if he was driven by his view of Kirk, regarding that issue? What are you afraid of, if that’s the case? There’s already loonies out there either way.
In my opinion, we ought to be focusing on the lack of tolerance that we see locally, before we start worrying about something like the motivation in this case. And the lack of “tolerance” (locally) is coming from the side that uniquely claims to be the side of tolerance. (Maybe a case of tyranny of the local majority.)
For that matter, do juries even render a verdict on “motivation” – other than indirectly? You think maybe some kind of “hate crime” enhancement in this case? (I don’t think political views qualify.)
You’re misreading my comment then. My comment simply laid out the appropriate way to evaluate such a case not whether it will be done properly in this particular instance.
Well, if you REALLY want to evaluate a case, you have to start with whether or not an individual did the crime in the first place.
Just like the guy accused of shooting the United Healthcare CEO. Though he already is guilty of having some impressive eyebrows (and apparently – lots of female fans).
If I ever get arrested for something, I’m not likely to have my own fan club (and it’s getting less likely each/every day).
Another case just arose which they’ll also have to prove, involving someone named “Buzzard”. (Yeap, I couldn’t help but think of where they found the body in that case.)
I thought that went without saying – but yes. I’m a believer in due process of law and the presumption of innocence and in fact my entrypoint into the criminal legal world was through wrongful convictions – the total breakdown of the system. But jumping into motive based on assumptions is a clear path toward a wrongful conviction which is why I tend to be very careful not to do that.
There’s always going to be some wrongful convictions, due to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Certainly a subjective standard, but there isn’t a better one that I’m aware of.
Pretty sure that I could discount whatever is reported in the media, if selected for a jury. I understand that everything has to be proven in court “beyond a reasonable doubt” (whatever that means).
Maybe, but there are clear design flaws in the system that make the error term far higher than it needs to be.
“Your framing is incendiary because it commits a basic causal fallacy and does so in a way that targets a marginalized group. And you have done so in an irresponsible and speculative way.”
I asked a question:
“How much did that influence Tyler Robinson’s actions?”
How is asking a question irresponsible? Did it influence Robinson’s reasons for killing Kirk. We don’t know for sure unless it comes out in evidence or by admission. But I would lean towards it being a huge factor.
You honestly don’t believe that a question can be incendiary or irresponsible? Let’s reframe it and see how it works, Mr. X is accused of murder. He is partners with a Black woman. Would it be incendiary or irresponsible to ask whether his choice of partners in that circumstance influenced his actions? I think most people would argue, yes. I suggested to Ron a proper basis for how to evaluate such claims, you ignored it.
“You honestly don’t believe that a question can be incendiary or irresponsible?”
I don’t think my question was either. So there you go. Once again, we can agree to disagree.
“He is partners with a Black woman. Would it be incendiary or irresponsible to ask whether his choice of partners in that circumstance influenced his actions? I think most people would argue, yes.”
If some influential political speaker was arguing against interracial marriage (and “he” assassinated that speaker), then that would also likely be viewed as a motive – assuming “he” is guilty.
Isn’t speculative motive always a question/point of discussion, regarding assassinations of public figures in particular?
Lots of great points by Ron and Keith. I appreciate the men who speak out on gender ideology as it harms women and children and vulnerable people the most.
Thanks Beth, I and more people than you will ever know appreciate your courage on these issues.