In the high-stakes world of global security, few phrases carry as much weight—or as much menace—as “We will find you and we will kill you.” While such language has historically been reserved for the most extreme threats to national survival, current analysis of proposed shifts in the U.S. Counterterrorism strategy suggests a desire to expand this lethal posture far beyond the traditional battlefields of the Middle East and Africa.
As a journalist who has spent over 16 years covering international affairs and investigative reporting, I have seen the boundaries of “acceptable” state violence shift gradually. However, the current trajectory suggests a more abrupt transition. We are seeing the emergence of a security blueprint that seeks to merge foreign warfare with domestic policing, effectively blurring the line between a foreign combatant and a political dissident.
This proposed evolution in security doctrine does not merely target established groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda. Instead, it envisions a broader definition of “terrorism” that encompasses “narco-terrorists” in the Western Hemisphere and “violent secular political groups” at home. By reframing political opposition and criminal enterprises as existential terrorist threats, the state gains a flexible, and potentially lethal, tool for “neutralizing” perceived enemies of the administration.
The implications of such a shift are profound. When the machinery of counterterrorism—designed for the shadows of asymmetric warfare—is turned toward domestic soil or used as a cudgel for regional hegemony in Latin America, the result is often a breakdown of due process and a surge in executive overreach.
The Expansion of the Terrorist Label: From Combatants to Dissidents
The core of this aggressive posture lies in the redefinition of the “enemy.” Traditionally, counterterrorism focused on organizations with a clear intent to commit mass-casualty attacks against civilians to achieve a political goal. However, the new ideological framework proposes a three-tiered threat model: legacy Islamist terrorists, narco-terrorists, and domestic “left-wing extremists.”
By placing “antifascist” organizations or anarchist groups on the same priority list as Al Qaeda, the administration effectively criminalizes a broad spectrum of political dissent. The use of the term “neutralization”—a word deeply rooted in the dark history of intelligence operations—suggests a goal that goes beyond arrest and prosecution. In the context of security memos, “neutralization” can range from the disruption of funding to the physical elimination of targets.
This approach mirrors the infamous COINTELPRO program, the FBI’s covert and often illegal series of projects conducted between 1956 and 1971. COINTELPRO was specifically designed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” domestic groups, including the civil rights movement and anti-war protesters. The historical lesson of COINTELPRO is that when a government views its own citizens through the lens of “counterintelligence,” it inevitably violates the constitutional rights of those citizens.
the inclusion of “radical pro-transgender ideology” or “anti-Christian bias” as markers for potential terrorist activity represents a shift toward a “culture war” security state. When ideology itself becomes a criterion for a terrorism designation, the legal protections afforded to freedom of speech and religion are essentially suspended. The “anti-terror imperative” thus becomes a tool for tamping down dissent, allowing the state to target anyone who does not adhere to a specific nationalist or religious vision of the country.
The New Monroe Doctrine and the War on Narco-Terrorism
Beyond the domestic front, the proposed strategy signals a return to a more muscular, imperialist interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. Originally articulated in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Western Hemisphere was closed to further European colonization. In the modern “America First” context, this has evolved into a justification for projecting unilateral power across the Caribbean and Pacific.
The primary vehicle for this projection is the designation of drug trafficking organizations as “narco-terrorists.” While the U.S. Government has long fought the drug trade, labeling cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) changes the legal landscape. It allows the military to engage in “targeted killings” and airstrikes against targets that would otherwise be handled by law enforcement agencies through indictments and extraditions.
The danger of this shift is the creation of a “secret war.” When the legal justification for military strikes is based on classified memos from the Office of Legal Counsel, there is no public oversight and no evidentiary standard. Critics argue that this creates a system of extrajudicial killings where the target is never read into the conflict and has no means of defense. The claim that these strikes target fentanyl shipments—which typically enter the U.S. Through legal ports of entry rather than via massive maritime bales—suggests that the “narco-terrorist” label may be a pretext for broader geopolitical goals.
This strategy is often used to pressure foreign governments, such as those in Mexico or Venezuela, by threatening them with “terrorism” designations. It transforms the drug war from a public health and law enforcement challenge into a military campaign, increasing the risk of civilian casualties and regional instability. By treating the Western Hemisphere as a “closed corner” of the world where the U.S. Can operate with impunity, the administration risks alienating key allies and fueling the very instability it claims to combat.
The Legal Architecture of Executive Overreach
The ability to “find and kill” targets depends on a specific legal architecture that has been expanding since 2001. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, provided the original legal cover for strikes against Al Qaeda and “associated forces.” Over two decades, the definition of “associated forces” has been stretched to cover almost any group the executive branch deems a threat.
The current strategy seeks to further loosen the “rules of engagement.” In previous administrations, there was often a requirement for “near-certainty” that non-combatants would not be killed. By watering down these principles, the threshold for a strike is lowered, making it easier to target individuals based on flawed intelligence or political convenience. This is particularly alarming when applied to “double-tap” strikes—where a second strike hits first responders or survivors of an initial attack—a tactic that is widely condemned by international law experts as a war crime.
The most chilling aspect of this architecture is the potential for “secret lists.” If the administration creates a classified list of domestic and foreign terrorists, the public has no way of knowing who is on it or what the criteria for inclusion are. When four-star generals are asked about their willingness to execute orders to attack these organizations within U.S. Borders, the answer often reflects a culture of absolute obedience to the chain of command rather than a commitment to the rule of law.
This environment is further exacerbated by the targeting of non-profit organizations. By using “material support for terrorism” laws to target groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center or other human rights organizations, the state can effectively bankrupt its critics. Financial institutions, fearing regulatory backlash, often comply in advance by freezing funds or blocking donations, creating a “chilling effect” that eliminates dissent without the need for a single courtroom conviction.
Who is Affected and What Happens Next?
The impact of this shift in the U.S. Counterterrorism strategy is not limited to “enemies of the state.” It affects every individual whose political, religious, or social identity falls outside the administration’s narrow definition of “Americanism.”
- Activists and Protesters: Those engaged in peaceful protest may find themselves labeled as “anarchists” or “anti-fascists,” potentially placing them on watchlists that restrict travel and employment.
- Marginalized Communities: Groups advocating for transgender rights or religious minorities may be categorized as “radical,” justifying increased surveillance and “neutralization” efforts.
- International Civilians: Residents of the Caribbean, Pacific, and East Africa face an increased risk of “collateral damage” as rules of engagement are loosened and drone warfare expands.
- Non-Profit Organizations: Human rights groups face the threat of losing their tax-exempt status or being shut down through “material support” allegations.
The path forward is fraught with legal and ethical challenges. While the executive branch may claim that these measures are necessary for national security, the history of the 20th century shows that “security” is often the first word used to justify the erosion of liberty. The survival of a democratic society depends on the ability of the judiciary and the legislature to provide a check on the “levers of power” used by the presidency.
We are currently entering a period where the definition of “terrorist” is no longer a legal fact, but a political choice. When the state claims the authority to “find and kill” its enemies based on a secret list, the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the leader. The only defense against such a system is transparency, rigorous investigative journalism, and a steadfast refusal to accept the “terrorist” label as a substitute for a fair trial.
The next critical checkpoint will be the upcoming series of congressional hearings on national security oversight and the potential legal challenges brought by civil liberties organizations against the new “designated terrorist” lists. These proceedings will determine whether the “America First” security state operates within the bounds of the Constitution or above them.
What do you think about the expansion of counterterrorism definitions? Should the military have a role in targeting domestic “extremists”? Share your thoughts in the comments below.