In the politically charged environment of the San Francisco Bay Area’s far left, the actions of Casey Goonan might have seemed relatively unremarkable. Over the summer of 2024, Goonan, an East Bay native and self-identified anarchist, carried out a series of attacks including setting fire to a police SUV on the University of California, Berkeley campus and igniting a planter of shrubs. These acts followed an unsuccessful attempt to throw a firebomb into a federal building in downtown Oakland. While such incidents are not uncommon in certain radical circles, what elevated Goonan’s case to national significance was the federal government’s interpretation of his motives and affiliations, leading to charges beyond simple arson.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Goonan’s attacks were not random acts of vandalism or protest, but rather deliberate attempts to “promote” terrorism. This assertion was based largely on communiques in which Goonan expressed solidarity with Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since 1997—and framed their actions within anarchist ideology. Initially, Goonan faced felony charges related to the use of incendiary devices, but prosecutors later added terrorism-related charges. In late September 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White sentenced Goonan to 19 and a half years in prison, followed by 15 years of probation. During the hearing, the judge described Goonan as “a domestic terrorist.” Prosecutors also requested that Goonan be placed in a Communications Management Unit (CMU), a highly restrictive prison setting reserved for inmates with terrorism-related offenses or affiliations.
Goonan’s case, which began under the Biden administration, offers a revealing glimpse into the future direction of the Department of Justice’s approach to domestic extremism under the incoming Trump administration. In late September 2024, President Donald Trump formalized a National Security Presidential Memorandum, NSPM-7, which signals a shift in counterterrorism priorities. This executive order identifies certain left-wing beliefs—such as anti-fascism, opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, and criticism of capitalism and Christianity—as potential “indicators of terrorism.” This marks a significant departure from previous policies that primarily targeted far-right extremist groups.
NSPM-7’s broad language effectively reorients the federal counterterrorism apparatus away from well-documented threats posed by neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, white nationalists, and Christian nationalists. Instead, it directs law enforcement to scrutinize activists and organizations on the political left, including anti-fascists and opponents of ICE. The order also calls for increased surveillance and investigation of non-profit groups and philanthropic foundations that support causes perceived as hostile to “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” Such sweeping directives raise concerns among civil rights advocates about the potential criminalization of dissent and the suppression of legitimate political debate.
Casey Goonan’s biography intersects with several elements that have drawn increased scrutiny under NSPM-7. Beyond their anarchist activism and declared admiration for Hamas, Goonan identifies as transgender—a characteristic cited in the new memorandum as a factor linked to “extremism migration, race, and gender.” Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have recently attempted to associate gender-fluid identities with violent extremism, pushing for the FBI to create a new domestic terrorism category termed “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” (TIVE). Such proposals have alarmed LGBTQ+ advocates and civil liberties groups, who warn that these measures could stigmatize and criminalize transgender individuals unjustly.
The executive order’s shift away from right-wing extremists toward left-wing activists like Goonan represents a significant transformation of the American security state’s post-9/11 counterterrorism framework. Mike German, a retired FBI agent who spent years infiltrating violent white supremacist groups before leaving the Bureau in protest of its post-9/11 policies, explains that this shift is rooted in what is known as “radicalization theory.” This theory, which was discredited in the 1990s but revived after 9/11, posits a linear progression from exposure to certain “bad ideas” through political activism to eventual violent acts. German argues that this framework enables authorities to target individuals not only for violent acts but for their beliefs and associations, effectively expanding the scope of counterterrorism to include mainstream political expression.
Under radicalization theory, voices of dissent and political activism become suspect