The National Security Memorandum on Countering Domestic Terrorism has sparked extensive debate regarding how political violence is characterized and addressed by the state. It’s crucial to understand that terrorism, as a term, has historically been applied selectively, often used against those who oppose state violence rather than being a neutral descriptor of violent acts. This memorandum highlights issues where the framework employed may serve as an excuse to oppress and undermine political dissent. Many activists, including Arab leftists and other leftist groups, have long been raising concerns about this selective application. They point out that the memorandum's approach can blur the lines between legitimate political opposition and actual threats to national security. This has significant implications for civil liberties and political expression. Moreover, it’s important to recognize both the continuities—how previous policies have treated dissent—and the ruptures—new strategies or expansions in surveillance and enforcement powers—that shape the current landscape. The memorandum reflects a broader trend where political violence is increasingly viewed through a lens that justifies increased state intervention, sometimes at the expense of marginalized groups. Understanding these dynamics is essential for informed discussion about domestic security measures and for advocating policies that truly protect all citizens without undermining democratic principles. This conversation is not just theoretical but impacts real lives and communities feeling the weight of aggressive security policies. Acknowledging the fear and genuine concerns among activists and citizens alike is a step toward creating a more equitable and just approach to national security.