Attorney General Pam Bondi is ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” according to a Justice Department memo published here exclusively.
The target is those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.”
Bondi Memo On Countering Domestic Terrorism And Organized Political Violence
That language echoes the so-called indicators of terrorism identified by President Trump’s directive National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, which the memo says it’s intended to implement. Where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA, this is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.
In addition to compiling a list of undesirables, Bondi directs the FBI to enhance the capabilities (and publicity) of its tipline in order to more aggressively solicit tips from the American public on, well, other Americans. To that end, Bondi also directs the FBI to establish “a cash reward system” for information leading to identification and arrest of leadership figures within these purported domestic terrorist organizations. (The memo later instructs the FBI to “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of the groups.)
The payouts don’t end there. Justice Department grants are now to prioritize funding to programs for state and local law enforcement to go after domestic terrorism.
In a section titled “Defining the domestic terrorism threat,” the memo cites “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment” — indicators that federal law enforcement are instructed to refer to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). Those JTTFs are then instructed to “use all available investigative tools” in order to “map the full network of culpable actors involved” in both “inside and outside the United States.”
The memo also directs the FBI and JTTFs to retroactively investigate incidents going back five years, authorizing the JTTFs in particular to use everything at their disposal to do so.
“Upon receipt of these referrals, the JTTFs shall use all available investigative tools, consistent with law enforcement internal policies and statutory obligations, to map the full network of culpable actors involved in the referred conduct inside and outside the United States,” the memo says.
For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious. But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously — even if the media are not — and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7.
NSPM-7 was signed in September largely in response to the murder of Charlie Kirk, which was a 9/11-type event for the Trump administration, as I’ve reported. (Kirk’s assassination is referenced explicitly in the Justice Department memo.) As anyone who lived through 9/11 can remember, the government doesn’t always think rationally in moments like those, to say the least. And so here we are, with a new War on Terrorism — only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target.
On June 5, shortly after 10 in the morning, black-clad officers stormed into the House of Trade Unions. The symbolic building on the Maidan, Kyiv’s Independence Square, is the headquarters of the country’s largest trade union federation, the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FPU).
The roughly 30 officers ordered the union employees to pack their things. The House of Trade Unions, they stated, has been confiscated. Employees and journalists were stopped outside, prevented from entering the building—by force if necessary.
The president of Profbud, an FPU member union representing the rights of workers in the construction industry, Vasyl Andreyev, speaks of a completely new level of escalation. Despite the government’s aggressive campaign against trade unions, this step came as a surprise to everyone, he recalls. Until that day, Profbud also had its offices in the House of Trade Unions.
Behind the operation was the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA), a state body responsible for securing and managing assets linked to corruption. In tow that day were heavily armed security forces and the new private property management company selected by ARMA.
The raid was not an isolated incident but part of a deepening confrontation between the government and the country’s unions. International union federations criticized that the seizure was part of a broader pattern of repression, including intimidation, criminal investigations, and legislative attacks.
ARMA justified its action with corruption allegations. Between 2016 and 2018, union officials had allegedly embezzled FPU real estate and personally profited from it. On this basis, the agency seized not only the House of Trade Unions but also numerous other FPU buildings. In April, law enforcement authorities arrested the FPU president, Grygorii Osovyi, along with four other officials. Osovyi has been under house arrest ever since.
Vasyl Andreyev says he cannot comment on the ongoing proceedings. However, he is not aware of any evidence supporting the accusations. The FPU and numerous unions at home and abroad criticized the arrest as politically motivated. The aim, they argued, was to destabilize the country’s largest trade union federation. The general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Luc Triangle, called for the immediate release of Grygorii Osovyi and the termination of all proceedings.
Even if there were some merit to the corruption allegations, labor lawyer Vitalii Dudin argues, the government’s approach is disproportionate. Dudin, a leading figure in Ukraine’s grassroots organization Sotsialnyi Rukh Social Movement), adds, “Legal action against individuals cannot justify measures that affect an entire organization.” He also suspects political motives behind the escalation. “Our governing party is pursuing a clearly neoliberal course. Until now, our trade unions were the only ones seriously opposing it.”
With his party Sluha narodu (Servant of the People), Volodymyr Zelensky achieved an unprecedented election victory in 2019. His faction holds nearly 60 percent of the seats in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. Well before Russia’s full-scale invasion, the government repeatedly sought to reform labor legislation in ways that favored employers. Each time, it was forced to backpedal by large protests led by the unions.
The situation changed fundamentally with the outbreak of war. Martial law allows neither demonstrations nor strikes. Many union members are fighting at the front or living in exile. “The government did not create this situation, but it has undoubtedly taken advantage of it,” Dudin says.
In March 2022, just weeks after the war began, parliament adopted the first reforms of labor and trade union law—among them the very neoliberal bills that had previously failed time and again because of union resistance.
The new regulations make it easier to dismiss employees, raise the maximum weekly working time from 40 to 60 hours, and allow weekend shifts without extra pay. While some emergency measures can be explained by wartime conditions, Dudin argues that many go far beyond what the situation requires. “They weaken the role of collective agreements and collective bargaining. This is the 101 of market liberalization.”
Further “reforms” followed. The government introduced so-called “zero-hour contracts”: on-call employment with pay only for hours worked. Although the law guarantees a minimum of 32 hours per month, lawyer Vitalii Dudin warns that the reform risks a two-tier workforce—secure contracts for compliant employees, precarious ones for union members.
The government’s “reform” frenzy is not over yet. Last year, the Ministry of Economy published a draft of a new labor code. It contains 329 articles that, according to the government, are intended to reduce bureaucracy and bring Ukraine closer to European standards. Critics see this as a further shift in the balance of power in favor of employers.
Without giving reasons, companies could decide on new working hours and wages within a week. Employees could be suspended without pay during ongoing dismissal negotiations. Trade unions would lose any say in operational decisions. “All of this,” says political economist Yuliya Yurchenko, senior lecturer at the University of Greenwich, “would not bring Ukrainian labor law closer to the EU, but instead move it further away as deregulation continues.”
However, after the initial shock at the start of the war, the unions have regained their footing. So far, they have successfully prevented the bill from being put to a vote in parliament. Observers suspect a direct link between the regained strength of the unions and the escalation of state repression. But Dudin speculates that the government underestimated how strong the headwinds of this escalation would be. Harsh criticism has come not only from international trade union alliances; dissatisfaction also seems to be growing among the population, he says.
On the sidelines of a summit in central Kyiv, which was actually meant to focus on Ukraine’s EU accession process, frustration erupted in early November. “How can EU accession be discussed here while trade union buildings are being seized?” one audience member asked. Another criticized the government’s reforms as neither progressive nor EU-compliant but somewhere between “neoliberal and libertarian.” The invited Ukrainian MPs appeared visibly tense and failed to provide answers.
The invitation came from the Social Democratic Group in the European Parliament. In their speeches, several members of the European Parliament warned—without directly naming the attacks on trade unions—that the current course was leading in the wrong direction. Yuliya Yurchenko was also invited as one of the panelists and became far more explicit. If policy is geared solely toward the interests of companies and not workers, she asked, who will benefit from the promised progress?
We need policies for the majority—not just for oligarchs—that address reskilling and upskilling, childcare, flexible hours for parents, and affordable housing, Yurchenko tells The Nation. At the summit, she delivers a final, unmistakable rebuke: The government’s treatment of trade unions, she says, is authoritarian and absolutely unacceptable. “We are not Russia. We are Ukraine.”
The audience applauded, though most Ukrainian MPs had long since left the chamber. On the ground, the immediate tension had quietly eased by the time of the summit. The FPU has found a new headquarters, less than two kilometers from the Trade Union House. And since July, Serhiy Byzov has been the federation’s new president. The government knows it crossed a red line with the arrest of Grygorii Osovyi and the confiscation of the House of Trade Unions, Dudin says.
For several months, the government has taken a more conciliatory tone. At the celebrations marking the FPU’s 35th anniversary in October, several members of the governing party attended and publicly praised the union’s work. “After all the campaigns against the unions, it was a bizarre sight,” Dudin recalls.
According to parliamentary sources, the planned labor code is also not expected to be submitted to parliament—at least not this year. But Dudin does not believe in a genuine change of course. “They will try again. I have no doubt about that.”
On Dec. 15th the EU added Swiss military analyst Jacques Baud to its infamous sanctions list.
The move is insane of course and needs to be resisted and challenged by the public.
This is a huge scandal as it directly threatens academic research all over Europe. Baud is famous for using almost exclusively Western media sources and established (state) media from Ukraine. To accuse him of some form of (Russian) propaganda is, sorry for the boastful term, the “mother of all lies”. Spread the word…
In a private email German reporter Patrik Baab stated that he tries to put together a protest note now with Germans General Kujat, Admiral Schönbach, Gen. Vad and Swiss Oberst.Ltnt Bosshardt.
I assume more protest notes will follow but those won´t affect anything.
Eventually this highly illegal, or if you prefer illegitimate, sanctions regime has to be brought down through a court.
The incompetence and malicious conduct of these people is simply insulting.
Here Moon of Alabamas´s blog entry earlier today:
“EU Sanctions Swiss Intelligence Expert Jacques Baud”
From an initial quick comment someone put together EU´s guarantees for human rights:
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:
Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
and
Article 17
Right to property
1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
and
Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
***
December 15, 2025 tweet from Pascal Lottaz, Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies at Kyoto University’s Faculty of Law & Hakubi Center (we’ve cross-posted some of his YouTube interviews with various academics, journalists and commentators. – Natylie):
“It is now official. The EU IS sanctioning the retired Swiss Army Col. and previous NATO advisor Jacques Baud who was on Neutrality Studies before. One of the most cool-headed and well-informed analysts out there. Reason: Baud is spreading Russian propaganda, the EU says. It is insane. The EUSSR is real.
EU sanctions are not part of the judicial branch. They are punishments coming straight from the executive arm (Kaja Kallas‘ office is responsible for compiling and proposing them). Sanctions against individuals that have never been found guilty by any court of law should not be possible.
Even worse, Baud is living in an EU country and has now all his assets frozen and a travel ban for the entire Union (Switzerland is not part of the EU).
I was in touch with Baud yesterday and he is currently assessing the legal implications on him:
“Yes, I have been sanctioned for ‚Russian propaganda‘. The fact I never use Russian material for my books, but exclusively Ukrainian and Western information and that I consequently refused invitations from Russian media, I am still a “Russian propagandist”!
As stated in my books, my work is not about who is good and who is bad, but about how bad media reflect the realities on the ground. I wanted to show that even without Russian information you can have a better understanding of the conflict. The idea is that the way you understand a crisis defines the way to solve it!
The recent photograph taken in London of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was intended to project unity and resolve. Instead, it has become a quiet indictment and a visual symbol of Europe’s geopolitical exhaustion, moral confusion and strategic irrelevance. Framed as a modern display of allied coordination, the image instead exposes a continent that has lost the power to shape events and must now cling to hollow performances of influence.
The photo stands in stark contrast to another image, separated by eighty years but now inseparable in symbolism – the iconic photograph from the Yalta Conference of February 1945, where Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, leaders of the victorious wartime coalition, met to determine the contours of the postwar order. Yalta remains one of the most symbolically potent diplomatic images of the twentieth century with three titans of history seated in Crimea, calmly dividing spheres of influence in Europe and shaping the architecture of global politics.
The juxtaposition with the London photo is devastating. Where Yalta showcased the architects of victory determining the fate of continents, London presents four embattled leaders presiding over a failing geopolitical project, excluded from real decision-making, divorced from battlefield realities and increasingly alienated even from their own citizens.
Yalta: The Moment When Power Shaped the World
Yalta is remembered not just for its decisions, but for what it represented – authority grounded in victory. The United States, Britain and most of all, the Soviet Union, had paid in blood, industry and sacrifice to defeat Nazi Germany. Their leaders possessed legitimacy not only from electoral mandates or political structure but from their command of armies, economies and societies mobilized for an existential struggle.
At Yalta, the great powers negotiated Europe’s postwar borders. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin carved out zones of influence and the future of Germany, Eastern Europe and global security institutions was shaped. This was diplomacy anchored in actual power. The Yalta image radiates the confidence of leaders who had earned the right to design the postwar order because they were the ones who had won the war.
Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 (Source: The Atlantic Council)
The symbolism is even deeper because Yalta took place in Crimea, the very peninsula that, in today’s conflict, symbolizes the West’s strategic denial. In 1945, Crimea was the serene setting in which the great powers calmly divided Europe. In 2025, Western leaders cannot even accept the reality of Crimea’s status, despite Russia’s irreversible consolidation there. The historical irony is almost poetic. The site where world order was once crafted is now a geographic focal point of Western delusion.
The London Quartet: A Photo of Defeat and Denial
Against this backdrop, the London photo looks painfully small. Starmer, Macron, Merz and Zelensky do not represent victory, legitimacy or stability. Instead, they embody a continent in decline, leaders who cannot influence Washington, cannot deter Moscow and cannot deliver results at home.
Left to Right: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron in London, December 8, 2025 (Source: BBC)
The absence of both the United States and Russia, the only two countries that actually determine the trajectory of the conflict, strips the image of any strategic meaning. Europe is not shaping the conflict. It is reacting to it in an increasingly incoherent manner. The symbolism is unmistakable. At Yalta, the world’s three dominant powers shaped global order. In London, four unpopular leaders pretend to shape a war they are losing. Public relations replaces strategy, performance substitutes for power and denial takes the place of diplomatic realism.
Even more revealing is the timing. As the photo circulates, battlefield reports, including those from The Telegraph, one of the most anti-Russia newspapers in Britain, confirm that Russian forces are accelerating territorial gains in Ukraine.1 Europe’s leaders stand before cameras as though dictating terms, yet on the ground, they have lost the initiative entirely.
A Lineup of Unpopular and Discredited Leaders
If the contrast in power is glaring, the contrast in legitimacy is even more humiliating. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin each stood atop national mobilization efforts whose populations accepted enormous sacrifice. Their word reflected the will and power of states united behind them.
The four leaders in the London photo, by contrast, represent profound domestic weakness. Starmer already faces collapsing approval ratings (now at 15%)2 mere months into office, with Labour disillusionment spreading rapidly. Macron is one of the most unpopular leaders in the history of the Fifth Republic with a 13% approval rating, presiding over a fragmented country and years of unrest.3 Merz is highly unpopular with a 23% approval rating, unable to command national confidence or offer a coherent alternative vision.4 Zelensky is an illegitimate head of state, ruling under martial law, postponing elections indefinitely, outlawing opposition parties, censoring media and presiding over deepening corruption.
Europe’s Increasing Strategic Isolation from Both Washington and Moscow
The London photo highlights isolation, not unity. The United States, Europe’s strategic patron, is now openly repositioning itself away from the continent’s conflicts. The newly released US National Security Strategy underscores this shift with striking clarity. While cloaked in the neutral vocabulary of “prioritization,” the document effectively demotes Europe as a strategic theater, placing it behind the Indo-Pacific and America’s competition with China. It signals that Washington will no longer underwrite Europe’s security architecture indefinitely, nor will it finance or sustain Europe’s maximalist ambitions in Ukraine.
Far from guaranteeing long-term support, the NSS demands that Europe assume far more responsibility for its own defense, despite lacking the political cohesion, military capacity or economic strength to do so. In practice, the document foreshadows a United States increasingly unwilling to bankroll Europe’s geopolitical illusions, leaving European leaders stranded with commitments they cannot fulfill.
This shift further isolates a Europe that has alienated Russia entirely and now finds itself subtly but unmistakably deprioritized by Washington. The continent’s leaders cling to maximalist war aims that Washington no longer supports, even as the United States now appears to pursue some semblance of a pragmatic peace plan that tacitly acknowledges Russian territorial gains. The London photo therefore becomes an even more powerful symbol of a Europe acting out the motions of great-power politics at the very moment its patron is quietly stepping away.
Europe Doubles Down: The €210 Billion Loan and the Commission’s Abuse of Emergency Powers
The greatest symbol of Europe’s internal decay, however, comes not from the photo itself but from the European Union’s proposal for a €210 billion ($225 billion) loan to Ukraine.
Not only is this financially reckless, especially for economies already crippled by energy shocks and inflation, it is being pushed through in a profoundly undemocratic way. The European Commission has invoked emergency powers to backstop the loan without the explicit consent of member states, making all EU member states liable for a massive debt they did not approve.
If the plan is implemented, this will represent a constitutional rupture as it overrides national sovereignty, violates the spirit (and arguably the letter) of EU treaties and imposes collective liability for Ukraine’s survival on European citizens who were never asked for their consent.
The Commission’s maneuver reveals a deeper truth in that Europe’s institutions, no longer able to generate unity through consent, have turned to coercion. This is how unions disintegrate, not through external pressure alone, but through internal overreach that delegitimizes the center. When citizens realize they are being forced into underwriting an unwinnable war, led by unpopular leaders in support of an illegitimate government in Kiev, resistance will not be ideological but existential. As such, this €210 billion debt scheme may one day be seen as the moment the EU stepped onto the path toward its own disintegration.
The Image of a Continent’s Exhaustion and Decline
In the end, the most striking difference between Yalta and London is not merely the imbalance of power, but the collapse of political imagination. Yalta’s leaders, despite their flaws, believed they were designing a world that would endure. The leaders in London cannot even shape the world already unfolding around them.
The London photo will be remembered as an image of a continent adrift, led by unpopular leaders, trapped in strategic denial, isolated from global decision-making and crippled by institutions willing to trample democratic norms to sustain an unraveling project. The tragedy is not that Europe has declined, but that its leaders cannot accept the fact. History is seldom kind to those who mistake performance for power.
No other governments are coming to aid Venezuela because the “axis of authoritarianism” is nonsense promoted by lazy Western analysts:
Russia, China, Cuba, Iran and other anti-American powers are offering little more than words of support for Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as he faces a U.S. military buildup that President Trump has said is aimed at forcing his ouster. Like Iran when it came under military attack from Israel and the U.S., Venezuela is finding its authoritarian allies on the sidelines of conflict.
It isn’t surprising that these other states aren’t doing anything to protect Venezuela because none of these countries is allied with any of the others. Hawks have been trying to will an “axis of authoritarianism” into existence for at least twenty years so that they can use it to stoke fear and exaggerate foreign threats. For the most part, the authoritarian states haven’t obliged by creating any alliances among them. The “axis of authoritarianism” isn’t real and it never was.
These states aren’t lifting a finger to help Venezuela because they have no reason and no obligation to do so. The “allies” are on the sidelines because they were never allies. Describing them as allies was a lazy, inaccurate shorthand that many analysts and politicians have been using to make all these states appear more threatening than they are.
Venezuela obviously poses no threat to the U.S. on its own. That is why interventionists have been going out of their way to hype the connections with great power rivals. The trouble for the fearmongers is that the connections are much more tenuous and much less significant than they have claimed.
