In a move that highlights growing anxieties over the intersection of national security policy and the First Amendment, a coalition of independent booksellers has issued a formal open letter to the American Booksellers Association (ABA) and the American Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFE). The letter sounds an "urgent concern" regarding the Trump administration’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a federal directive that the booksellers argue effectively criminalizes the distribution of leftist ideas, zines, and anti-fascist publications.
The letter, authored and signed by a geographically diverse group of prominent independent bookstores, characterizes the memorandum as a direct assault on the freedom of expression. The signatories include Firestorm Books of Asheville, North Carolina; Autumn Leaves Books of Ithaca, New York; Boneshaker Books and Moon Palace Books of Minneapolis, Minnesota; Burning Books of Buffalo, New York; Charis Books & More of Decatur, Georgia; Pilsen Community Books in Chicago, Illinois; and Word Up Community Bookshop/Librería Comunitaria in New York, New York.
The coalition argues that the current political climate requires more than just the traditional opposition to local book bans or school board challenges. Instead, they are calling for a national mobilization against what they describe as the potential criminalization of the entire bookselling industry. "As we continue opposing book bans and other legislative challenges," the letter states, "we must also prepare for the potential criminalization of those in our industry."
The central focus of the booksellers’ alarm is NSPM-7, titled "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence." Issued on September 25, 2025, the memorandum arrived in the volatile aftermath of the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Critics of the memo, including the letter’s signatories, describe it as a "naked attack on freedom of expression and freedom of thought," suggesting that the administration is using the rhetoric of national security to suppress political dissent.
The memorandum attempts to construct a legal framework that links a wide variety of unrelated incidents of protest, activism, and political violence under a single, broad umbrella of "surging left-wing violence." According to the document, these incidents are not isolated but are rather the "culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns" orchestrated by "domestic terrorists" seeking to "wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties."
However, the open letter points out a glaring lack of evidence within the memorandum to support these claims of a coordinated, national conspiracy. The signatories argue that the document fails to identify who is coordinating these campaigns or how they are being funded and executed. Instead, the memo relies on a sprawling and intentionally vague definition of "anti-fascism," which the administration explicitly equates with "anti-Americanism."
According to the text of NSPM-7, the "common threads" that animate this alleged violent conduct include "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity." The memo further targets "extremism on migration, race, and gender," as well as "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality."
The booksellers argue that such language is "excessively and intentionally broad." By including phrases like "traditional American views on family," the state creates a legal standard so subjective and vague as to be essentially meaningless. This lack of specificity, the letter warns, allows the government to define almost any form of speech, conduct, or thought as a threat to national security, thereby authorizing repressive state action against individuals and businesses alike.
The concerns raised by the booksellers are not merely theoretical. The open letter points to a recent and chilling legal precedent: the prosecution of protesters involved in a demonstration on July 4, 2025, outside the Prairieland ICE detention facility in Texas. This case, the signatories argue, serves as a "proof of concept" for how NSPM-7 will be weaponized against political activists and the infrastructure that supports them.
In the Prairieland case, nine protesters were arrested. As reported by The Guardian, a jury subsequently found eight of those nine individuals guilty of "providing material support to terrorists." The federal government’s argument for "material support" rested on evidence that many civil libertarians find deeply troubling. This evidence included the possession of a "printing press"—which was in reality a standard office printer, a paper cutter, and basic book-binding materials—used to produce anarchist zines. The prosecution also cited the defendants’ participation in a leftist book club as evidence of their involvement in a terrorist enterprise.
The federal government’s focus extended beyond literature to include basic security and privacy measures that have become common in the digital age. The use of Faraday bags to block wireless signals and prevent surveillance, the utilization of the encrypted messaging application Signal, and even the wearing of all-black clothing were all presented as indicators of criminal intent.
"The sheer breadth of NSPM-7’s mandate allows for common items to be tied to an invented ideology that the administration has defined and built up," the booksellers’ letter notes. This environment, they argue, "transmogrifies a stapler into an antifa terrorist stapler," providing the state with the justification to use the full weight of its power to crush dissent.
The consequences for those caught in the web of NSPM-7 are severe. The sentences handed down to the Prairieland protesters range from 30 to 100 years in federal prison—sentences that the signatories of the letter describe as "cruel and excessive" and effectively life sentences for exercising political speech.
Among those sentenced is Autumn Hill, a trans woman and activist who was given 50 years in prison. In an interview with The Nation, Hill, who is currently incarcerated in a men’s prison, articulated a philosophy that stands in stark contrast to the "violent, antisocial rhetoric" the administration associates with her movement. "My whole life is driven by this radical love and by this urgent need to see justice done," Hill told reporter Grace Byron.
The booksellers contend that if the Prairieland case is allowed to stand as a precedent, bookstores themselves will become the "natural next target" for the state. They fear that the same "material support" charges used against the Texas protesters could be applied to any bookstore that stocks, sells, or promotes literature deemed "extremist" under the broad definitions of NSPM-7.
"We believe that if unchecked," the letter warns, "this administration could bring similar charges against ABA members under NSPM-7’s stunningly broad definition of ‘antifa extremism.’"
In light of these developments, the coalition of bookstores is calling on the ABA and the ABFE to abandon what they perceive as a culture of "silence and isolation." They urge these national organizations to take a much stronger and more public stance against both national and local attempts to criminalize free speech. Specifically, they are asking the ABFE to publicly address the implications of the Prairieland case and for the ABA to communicate a clear intention to defend its members from federal prosecution under these new security guidelines.
The letter concludes by framing the current struggle within the broader context of American history. The signatories point out that the United States was founded on radical ideas, many of which were disseminated through the very types of short publications and pamphlets that the government is now targeting. They reference the work of historian Howard Zinn, specifically his book Artists in Times of War, which defends the long American tradition of radical pamphleteering as an essential form of civic engagement.
By targeting zines, small presses, and independent bookstores, the signatories argue that the administration is not only attacking a specific political ideology but is also undermining a fundamental American tradition. The pamphlet, written by concerned citizens and political radicals, has historically been a primary tool for those seeking to challenge the status quo and expand the boundaries of American democracy.
The booksellers’ letter serves as a stark warning to the literary community and the public at large: the tools of state security are being recalibrated to target the tools of free expression. As the legal battle over NSPM-7 continues, the signatories remain focused on the human cost of these policies, urging the industry to remember the words of Autumn Hill and the "urgent need to see justice done" in the face of what they describe as a "craven" and "authoritarian" state action.
