.png)
Breaking Down the Headlines: The 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy Part Two- Unpacking the Propaganda
- 2 days ago
- 10 min read
In this blog series, we'll be breaking down some of the complex news, legal actions, and policies that are impacting LGBTQ+ folks. Each week we will breakdown one news story, legal action, or policy in clear, plain language without the clickbait, and give you tools to learn more or take action. This week, we are continuing our focus on the 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy.
In the first part of covering the 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy, we broke down what the document is, and what it is not. In part two, we are taking a closer look at what the strategy actually says, and the propaganda surrounding it.
The 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy states the government’s counterterrorism mission is to identify groups it believes could attack Americans and stop them before attacks happen. It focuses on identifying suspected threats early, cutting off funding and recruitment, and destroying groups considered long-term dangers. The document also supports military or security actions against what the government defines as “imminent” threats and calls for aggressive campaigns against jihadist extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. It also says the U.S. may use sanctions, cyber operations, and covert actions against governments or groups accused of helping organizations labeled as terrorist threats. This focus on foreign threats is directly related to the 2025 Executive Order 14157, which labeled drug cartels and transnational gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), giving the government broader investigative and financial enforcement powers.
For this series, however, we are focusing on the strategy’s inclusion of “violent left-wing radicals” and language about the “rapid identification and neutralization” of groups described as “anti-American,” “radically pro-transgender,” or anarchist. There are several key take aways from the document in this regard.
Targeting of Domestic Political Opponents: The strategy officially labels "violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists" as major threats. Civil liberties advocates argue this language is overly broad and could be used to criminalize peaceful protests, civil rights activism, and progressive political speech.
Erasure of Far-Right Extremism: The document completely omits right-wing extremism, white supremacy, and violent militias, which have a documented history of violence.
Weaponization Against Nonprofits: There is legitimate concern that the document is being used to target, sanction, or strip the tax-exempt status of nonprofit groups and advocacy networks that disagree with the administration.
Increased Surveillance and Profiling: Civil rights groups warn the strategy echoes post-9/11 national security policies that rely on mass surveillance, racial/religious profiling, and crackdowns on dissent.
This focus on the “left-wing” is a direct result of Executive Order 46317 Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization. This executive order was accompanied by the President signing a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), which directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTFs) to “coordinate a national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and disrupt entities and individuals engaged in political violence and intimidation designed to suppress lawful activity or obstruct the rule of law.”
Executive Order 46317 and the NSPM spurred the addition of “violent left-wing radicals” and language about the “rapid identification and neutralization” of groups described as “anti-American,” “radically pro-transgender,” or anarchist into the U.S. counterterrorism strategy, and marks a major shift away from focusing on documented threats like white supremacist violence and toward targeting political groups the administration opposes. Without this change, and aside from the aggressive, militarized, hyper-masculine, language and theme of projecting dominance in a violent manner, the 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy is otherwise a fairly standard public-facing document on counterterrorism priorities.
The added focus on domestic groups and individuals the administration views as in opposition to their agenda, the omission of far-right extremist violence despite its documented history, increased surveillance and profiling, and the possibility that nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups could face investigations or political retaliation, reinforces that the administration is targeting political opponents and seeking to label them as domestic terrorists.
At the same time, it is important to stay grounded in what the law currently allows. For example, participating in a protest against genocide in the form of blocking traffic, trespassing, or acts of vandalism could result in arrest and charges being brought against you for those actions, but the federal government could not charge you with domestic terrorism for those actions. Domestic terrorism is not currently a chargeable federal offense. There is no single federal “domestic terrorism” charge that can simply be applied to protesters, activists, or political groups.
A Congressional Research Service Report stated “it is important to note that domestic terrorism is not a chargeable federal offense. While an individual may still have committed criminal acts that are widely considered domestic terrorism, the individual cannot be charged with committing an act of domestic terrorism under current federal law.”. The report provided the example of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of murder, conspiracy and using a weapon of mass destruction, not domestic terrorism. So, there is not an encompassing charge of “domestic terrorism” that can be brought against a person or group. Understanding that distinction is important because fear and misinformation can easily escalate beyond the reality of the law.
Propaganda and How We Got Here
Propaganda- Information or ideas that are spread by an organized group or government to influence people’s opinions, especially by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts (Cambridge Dictionary)
Over the past several years, the administration and its allies have increasingly blended together very different groups and activities, violent extremism, racial justice protests, immigration, student activism, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and what the administration calls “gender ideology”, into one larger narrative about America being threatened from within. That framing is powerful because it encourages the public to see protest, political disagreement, and marginalized communities as suspicious or dangerous, even when there is no evidence connecting them to terrorism or organized violence.
That is how propaganda works. It often relies less on evidence and more on repetition, fear, emotional messaging, and the creation of symbolic enemies. Propaganda itself is not new, nor is it unique to any one political party or ideology. History is full of examples of governments and political movements using fear-based narratives to shape public opinion and justify harmful policies.
These tactics have taken many forms throughout history, including caricatures and dehumanizing imagery, such as depictions of Japanese people as animalistic during World War II or racist imagery targeting Black Americans during the Jim Crow era. Propaganda has also relied heavily on slogans and emotionally charged language, such as “Better Dead than Red,” a Cold War phrase used to intensify fear of socialism and frame political disagreement as an existential threat. Understanding this broader history is important because it helps put the current moment into context. The 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy did not emerge in a vacuum. It exists within years of escalating political rhetoric focused on “internal enemies” and “dangerous ideologies.”
The current administration has made “counterterrorism” a major part of its political messaging. In speeches, executive orders, policy documents, and media appearances, the President and other administration officials have repeatedly described the United States as under threat from immigrants, protesters, “radical ideologies,” and increasingly, transgender people and their allies. For many people watching this unfold, especially LGBTQ+ communities, immigrants, educators, healthcare workers, activists, and organizers, the fear is real, and it makes sense.
After the racial justice protests of 2020, “antifa” became a major political scapegoat. Although anti-fascism is not a centralized national organization, politicians and media figures often portrayed it as though it were a coordinated terrorist network. That framing was politically useful because it transformed protest itself into something suspicious and dangerous. Over time, the same strategy expanded toward transgender people and LGBTQ+ advocates. Politicians and right-wing media increasingly used emotionally charged language about “protecting children,” “grooming,” and “gender ideology.” These narratives rely on misinformation, isolated incidents, and moral panic rather than evidence. The goal was not simply to debate policy, but to portray transgender people as symbols of social danger and cultural decline, and allies as accomplices in the destruction.
Once a group is framed as a threat to children, morality, or national stability, aggressive government responses become easier to justify publicly. History shows this pattern repeatedly. Similar fear campaigns have targeted immigrants, Muslims, Black activists, gay people during the AIDS crisis, and political dissidents throughout U.S. history.
Specific Examples of Propaganda Messaging in the 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy
One of the clearest examples of propaganda in the 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy is the language used in the preamble itself. The statement “we will find you and we will kill you” is not simply about national security. It is political theater designed to project dominance, aggression, and fear. The language is intentionally militarized and emotionally charged, reinforcing the administration’s broader image of strength, punishment, and relentless force. This kind of rhetoric serves multiple purposes at once: it energizes supporters who are drawn to displays of power, intensifies fear among communities already being politically targeted, and creates the impression that the government is engaged in a constant war against enemies both outside and inside the country. That emotional atmosphere is important because fear can make people more willing to accept government overreach and more likely to see dissent as dangerous.
Another major example of propaganda appears in the strategy’s repeated insistence that the administration is not targeting political opposition, while at the same time describing exactly that. The document claims it is focused on violent extremism and protecting public safety, yet it repeatedly uses vague and politically loaded language such as:
“violent left-wing radicals,”
“anti-American ideologies,”
and groups described as “radically pro-transgender.”
Those phrases are not neutral security terms. They are ideological labels. The strategy never clearly defines what qualifies someone as “anti-American” or “radically pro-transgender,” which creates enormous room for political interpretation. That ambiguity is part of the point. Broad language allows the administration to blur the line between actual violence and ordinary political activism, protest movements, LGBTQ+ advocacy, or criticism of government policy.
This contradiction is a classic propaganda tactic sometimes referred to as gaslighting: publicly denying something while simultaneously creating the exact conditions for it to happen. The administration insists it is not targeting political opponents, but then frames oppositional political movements and marginalized communities as national security concerns. It says the strategy is about terrorism, while repeatedly directing suspicion toward protesters, anti-fascists, transgender advocates, and other groups associated with political opposition. This matters because once people are framed as threats to public safety or national stability, increased surveillance, investigations, and aggressive enforcement measures become easier to justify in the public mind. The strategy relies heavily on emotional framing rather than evidence, encouraging fear and suspicion toward already vulnerable groups while distracting from documented threats like white supremacist violence and far-right extremism.
The strategy also relies heavily on propaganda buzzwords and emotionally loaded phrases that already carry strong cultural and historical associations. Terms like:
“anti-American,”
“radical ideologies,”
“violent extremists,”
“national security,”
“law and order,”
“defending the homeland,”
“enemy networks,”
and “internal threats”,