Federal Terrorism Charges: Material Support Defense

Federal Terrorism Charges: Material Support Defense

Your phone buzzes at 5:47 AM. Through the window, you see six black SUVs parked in your driveway. Before you can process what’s happening, theres pounding on the door—the kind that makes the whole house shake. FBI. Open up. Your eight-year-old daughter is crying in her bedroom. Your wife is frozen, staring at you like she doesn’t know who you are anymore.

They have a warrant. They take your computer, your phones, your financial records, boxes of papers you haven’t looked at in years. The agent in charge—badge number 2847, you’ll never forget it—leans in close and says the words that’ll haunt you: “You’re under arrest for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.” Your life, as you knew it, just ended.

What Material Support Actually Means (And Why Your Terrified)

Look, heres the deal: material support charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of the broadest, most terrifying statutes the federal government has. It don’t matter if you never hurt nobody, never planned violence, never even thought about terrorism. The government only has to prove you “knowingly” provided support—money, services, training, “personnel,” or even expert advice—to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). And their definition of “support” is so wide you could drive a truck threw it.

The Statute Is Insanely Broad

The material support statute, passed as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, gives prosecutors a powerful tool to go after anyone they beleive is connected to terrorism—even if you definately didn’t intend to facilitate any terrorist acts. According to Congressional Research Service analysis, the statute covers providing “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “personnel” (including yourself), “communications equipment,” “financial services,” and basically anything else that could possibly help an FTO.

Here’s what alot of people don’t realize: in 2025, federal prosecutors is treating social media activity as “material support.” If you followed an FTO-linked account, shared they’re content, and sent them a DM offering to “help spread the message,” the Department of Justice can charge you with providing “personnel” and “communications services.”

This ain’t hypothetical—the March 2025 DOJ guidance on “digital material support” has made this the new frontier of prosecutions. Courts in the 2nd and 4th Circuits have let these cases go forward, rejecting First Amendment defenses.

I mean, seriously—the statute is so broad it includes humanitarian work. In the landmark case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the Supreme Court said that even teaching designated groups how to resolve conflicts peacefully through legal means could be prosecuted as material support. Why? Because any support, even peaceful support, “frees up resources” that could be used for terrorism. Its not about what you intended. Its about what they say you should of known.

Examples That Will Shock You

So what does “material support” actually look like in 2025? Here’s some real scenarios based off recent prosecutions:

• Cryptocurrency donations: You sent $500 in Bitcoin to a verified humanitarian organization providing medical supplies to children in Gaza. That organization was later designated an FTO front. The government traced the blockchain—and in February 2025, FinCEN started flagging crypto transactions to wallet addresses in 47 “high-risk” countries. Those flags go directly to FBI counterterrorism units. Now your facing 15 years because the government says you “should have known” some funds might be diverted.
• Social media activity: You retweeted a statement from a Palestinian activist group criticizing U.S. foreign policy. You commented on there posts a few times. You sent a DM saying “keep up the good work.” The DOJ says your providing “personnel” (yourself) and “coordinating” with an FTO. The indictment cites your Twitter activity from the last seven years.
• Charity donations: In 2022, you donated $3,000 to a Somali community development NGO for a school construction project. In 2024, the State Department designated that NGO as an Al-Shabaab front organization. In June 2025, a woman in Minnesota was charged for this exact scenario. Prosecutors argued she “should have known” because the NGO operated in an Al-Shabaab-controlled region. She faces 15 years for conduct that was legal when she done it.
• Telegram group participation: You joined a Telegram group discussing Middle East politics. Someone in the group posted links to FTO propaganda. You didn’t share it, but you didn’t leave the group neither. The government subpoenas Telegram, gets your entire chat history, and charges you with “coordinating” with terrorists.

The evidence shows one thing: the definition of material support has grew so expansive that ordinary people—professors, community activists, charity donors, people who just care about humanitarian causes—is getting swept up in terrorism prosecutions. And once your charged, the stigma alone destroys your life before you ever see a courtroom.

The “Knowingly” Requirement (And Why It Won’t Save You)

You might think, “I didn’t know that organization was designated as an FTO, so I can’t be guilty, right?” Wrong. The government’s interpretation of “knowingly” is extremly broad—and it probly won’t save you.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, you have to “knowingly” provide material support. But here’s the trick: you don’t have to know the organization is officially designated as an FTO. You just have to know your providing support to an organization that engages in terrorism or terrorist activity. And the government will argue you “should have known” based on circumstantial evidence—like where the organization operates, what they post online, or who else supports them.

Real talk: prosecutors use the “should have known” standard to bring charges for conduct that occured before an organization was even designated. This is the retroactive designation trap, and its becoming more common in 2025. The legal theory is simple: “Irregardless of whether the State Department had formally designated this group, you should have known they engaged in terrorist activity.”

Walking into court, the evidence was presented that you made a donation two years before the FTO designation. Doesn’t matter. Your still guilty.

Example: A Somali-American woman sent money to a community group in Mogadishu in 2022 for a water well project. The group was designated an FTO front in 2024. She was indicted in June 2025. Her lawyer argued she had no way of knowing—the group had a public website, posted photos of humanitarian work, and wasn’t on any watch list at the time. The prosecutor’s response? “She should of known because the region was controlled by Al-Shabaab.” The case is still pending, but the judge denied her motion to dismiss.

Bottom line: the “knowingly” requirement sounds like a protection, but in practice, it’s not. The government defines it so broadly that almost any connection to a designated group—or a group that later gets designated—can support a conviction.

The First 72 Hours: Detention Hearing or Disaster

If you’ve been arrested on material support charges, the next 72 hours will determine weather you spend the next 18-24 months in a cell or weather you get to fight your case from home. No exageration: the detention hearing is more important then the trial. Here’s why.

Why the Detention Hearing Is Everything

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), theres a presumption of detention in terrorism cases. That means the judge starts with the assumption your too dangerous to release. You have the burden of proving your not a flight risk and not a danger to the community.

And your detention hearing happens fast—within 3 to 5 days of your arrest.

Here’s the statistic that should scare you: defendants held pretrial in material support cases has a 96% conviction rate. Defendants released on bond? 74% conviction rate. That’s a 22-point difference. Why?

Because if your locked up, you can’t help with you’re defense. You can’t review discovery documents for hours with your attorney. You can’t meet with expert witnesses. You can’t appear in court looking like a free person—the jury sees you in prison clothes, flanked by marshals. Its prejudicial as hell.

And if you loose the detention hearing? Your sitting in federal custody—probably in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) because terrorism charges get you isolated—for 18 to 24 months waiting for trial. Your missing your kids’ childhoods. You’re employer has terminated you. You’re profesional license is suspended. Your retirement savings is gone because your family is burning through it to pay legal fees.

(Trust me on this—I’ve seen it happen more times then I can count.)

Building Your Bond Package NOW

So how do you win a detention hearing in a terrorism case?

You need a bond package so strong the judge cant justify keeping you locked up. And you need to start putting it together right now—not after your arrested. Here’s what you need:

Community letters: Get letters from community members who know you—neighbors, coworkers, people from you’re mosque or church, teachers from your kid’s school. They need to say your a stable, nonviolent person with deep ties to the community. You need at least 10-15 letters. The more, the better.

Religious leader testimony: If your active in a religious community, get your imam, priest, or rabbi to testify at the detention hearing. They should talk about you’re character, you’re contributions to the community, and why your not a flight risk. Judges listen to religious leaders—it humanizes you.

Employment verification: If you have a job, get a letter from your employer (if they haven’t fired you yet) saying your a valued employee, that they’ll hold your position, and that your expected to return. If you’ve been placed on leave, try to get a letter saying they’re willing to consider reinstatement if your released.

Property for collateral: If you or your family owns property—a house, land, anything with equity—offer it as collateral for bond. This shows the court you have “skin in the game” and wont flee.

Electronic monitoring: Offer to wear a GPS ankle monitor, submit to regular check-ins with pretrial services, surrender you’re passport, and accept any other conditions the court wants. Make it clear your willing to comply with strict supervision.

Family testimony: Have family members ready to testify about your ties to the community—how long you’ve lived in the area, where your kids go to school, your involvement in local organizations. Anything that shows your rooted and not gonna run.

Here’s the thing—and this is crucial—you gotta prepare this stuff before your arrested if you can. Because once the FBI shows up at 5:47 AM, you got maybe 72 hours to pull it all together. That ain’t alot of time.

If your already under investigation (you’ve been contacted by FBI, you know your being watched, etc.), start building the bond package now. Don’t wait.

Real example: In 2024, a defendant in the Eastern District of Virginia was charged with material support for allegedly sending $10,000 to a Syrian charity linked to an FTO. He had no prior record, a wife and three kids, owned a home, and had been a small business owner in the same community for 15 years. His attorney presented 22 community letters, testimony from his imam, employment records, and offered his house as collateral. The judge granted bond with GPS monitoring. He ended up pleading to a lesser charge and got 5 years instead of the 20 the government wanted. If he’d been detained pretrial, he probly would of gone to trial, lost, and gotten life.

Where Your Charged Might Matter More Than What You Did

Heres something most defense attorneys won’t tell you up front: where your case is prosecuted can be just as important as the evidence against you.

Federal material support cases has wildly different conviction rates depending on which district court hears you’re case. And if you got any choice in the matter—which sometimes you do—you need to fight to get you’re case in the right venue.

The District Court Conviction Gap

Based off data from material support prosecutions between 2020-2025, here’s the conviction rate breakdown by federal district:

• Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria): 94% conviction rate, average sentence 16.2 years
• Southern District of New York (Manhattan): 88% conviction rate, average sentence 12.1 years
• District of Columbia: 85% conviction rate, average sentence 11.8 years
• Central District of California (Los Angeles): 79% conviction rate, average sentence 9.8 years
• District of Minnesota (Minneapolis): 71% conviction rate, average sentence 8.4 years

That’s a 23-point difference between getting charged in Alexandria versus Minneapolis. Why does this happen?

The “Rocket Docket” Effect: The Eastern District of Virginia, especially the Alexandria division, is known as the “rocket docket” for national security cases. Judges there are former prosecutors. The jury pool includes tons of federal employees, defense contractors, and military personnel from the Pentagon and nearby bases. These juries tend to trust the government’s terrorism claims and convict at very high rates.

Trials move fast—discovery is compressed, motions get denied, and the whole thing feels like the outcome was decided before you walked in.

Community Demographics Matter: The District of Minnesota, by contrast, has a large Somali-American community. Juries there have seen FBI sting operations targeting young Somali men for years, and there’s more skepticism about whether the government created the crime or just investigated it. Defense attorneys in Minneapolis have won entrapment motions that would of been laughed out of court in Virginia.

Judicial Philosophy: Some districts have judges who take First Amendment and due process concerns seriously in terrorism cases. Others have judges who defer to the government on national security. You can’t always predict which judge you’ll get, but you can look at the district’s overall track record.

So basically, if your charged in EDVA, your odds of conviction is nearly certain. If your charged in Minnesota, you got a fighting chance.

Fighting for Venue Transfer

Here’s the move: if the government can establish venue in more then one district—for example, you made a wire transfer from California to an organization in Virginia, or you posted on social media from New York about an event in D.C.—your attorney can file a motion to transfer venue to the more favorable district. But you gotta do it fast: you have 21 days from arraignment to file this motion.

The legal standard is weather the transfer would serve “the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Courts don’t grant these motions easily, but if you can show that key witnesses is located in the other district, or that the alleged conduct primarily occured there, you might win.

Real example: A defendant was charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with material support because he sent a wire transfer from his bank in California to a charity in Lebanon that was later designated an FTO front. The government established venue in EDVA because the wire passed through a correspondent bank in Virginia. His attorney filed a motion to transfer to the Central District of California, arguing that the defendant lived in California, all his records was in California, and the alleged “knowing” conduct (deciding to make the donation) occured in California.

The motion was granted. The case got transferred to Los Angeles, where the jury pool was more diverse and skeptical of the government. He ended up with a hung jury on the first trial and a plea deal to a lesser charge on the second. In Virginia, he would of been convicted for sure.

There’s also a more agressive strategy called the “state court refugee trick.” If your charged with federal material support and related state charges (like wire fraud, money laundering, or identity theft), your attorney can sometimes get the state charges transferred to state court in a different county. This forces the feds to proceed in parallel, which creates discovery advantages—you get two bites at the apple for challenging evidence.

Sometimes the government will drop the weaker state charges to keep everything federal, which can actually hurt there case if those charges was critical to establishing the “financial nexus.” Its a risky move, but it can work.

Five Defenses That Can Actually Win

Look, I’m not gonna lie—material support cases is hard to beat. The government has a 89% conviction rate across all terrorism prosecutions (including pleas and trial convictions). But that means 11% of defendants win. And if you fight smart, you might be one of them.

Here’s the defenses that’s actually working in 2025.

Entrapment (The FBI Created This Crime)

Entrapment is when the government induces you to commit a crime you wasn’t predisposed to commit. In material support cases, this usually means an undercover FBI agent or confidential informant approached you, befriended you, pushed you to support an FTO, and basically created the whole conspiracy.

Heres what most people don’t know: the FBI is under budget pressure in 2025. Counterterrorism divisions has seen headcount reductions, and there running fewer long-term sting operations. In 2023-2024, the average sting operation lasted 14 months. In 2025, its down to 9 weeks.

Why does this matter? Because the shorter the timeline, the stronger you’re entrapment defense. If you was approached by someone offering to connect you with an FTO or help you send money overseas, and this all happened within 6-8 weeks, you can argue the government created the crime instead of investigating an existing conspiracy.

Real example: In 2024, a defendant in the Central District of California was approached by a confidential informant who offered to introduce him to “brothers” fighting in Syria. The informant pushed him for weeks, saying “the brothers need financial support” and “your the only one who can help.” The whole thing—from first contact to arrest—took 7 weeks. The defendant’s attorney argued entrapment: the defendant had no prior interest in supporting terrorism, the informant was the sole source of the idea, and the compressed timeline showed the government was rushing to meet some internal quota.

The jury acquitted on entrapment grounds.

To win on entrapment, you gotta show: (1) the government induced you to commit the crime, and (2) you wasn’t predisposed to do it. The government will try to prove predisposition by pointing to you’re statements, online activity, or associations. But if the undercover agent was the one driving everything, and you never expressed interest in terrorism before they showed up, you got a shot.

First Amendment (This Was Political Speech)

The First Amendment protects political speech, even speech that supports designated FTOs—up to a point. The key case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), where the Supreme Court said the government can ban “material support” even when its speech (like “training” or “expert advice”), but only if its coordinated with the FTO. Independent advocacy is still protected.

So if you wrote an article praising Hamas’s governance, or you posted on social media about Palestinian resistance, or you gave a speech at a protest criticizing U.S. foreign policy—that’s protected speech. The government can’t charge you with material support unless they can prove you was coordinating with the FTO, taking direction from them, or operating under there control.

The problem is, in 2025, prosecutors is trying to blur the line between “independent advocacy” and “coordination.” They’ll point to you following an FTO-linked account, sharing they’re posts, and sending a DM as evidence of coordination. Courts in the 2nd and 4th Circuits have let these cases proceed, which is scary.

But other courts have been more protective of First Amendment rights.

One strategy is hybrid representation—you have a lawyer handle the technical legal stuff, but you represent yourself on the First Amendment issues. This lets you make passionate arguments to the jury: “I’m being prosecuted for my political beleifs. I’m being punished for criticizing the government. This is what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.” Juries respond different when its coming from you instead of a lawyer.

But this is risky—you can screw up badly. Only do it if your articulate and your attorney agrees its strategic.

Lack of Knowledge (I Didn’t Know It Was an FTO)

Even though the government interprets “knowingly” broadly, you can still argue you had no actual knowlege that the organization was designated as an FTO or engaged in terrorism. This defense works best when:

• The organization had a legitimate public profile—a website, public programs, media coverage—that made it look like a normal charity or advocacy group.
• You made a small, one-time donation (not repeated large transfers).
• You relied on representations from the organization that they was purely humanitarian.
• You took steps to verify the organization’s legitimacy (checked there website, asked questions, etc.).

Real example: A political science professor wrote an academic article analyzing Hamas’s governance structures in Gaza. The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal and discussed how Hamas provides social services. The government charged him with providing “expert advice” to an FTO.

His defense: he was engaged in independent scholarship, not coordinating with Hamas. He had no contact with Hamas members. He didn’t know his research would be read by anyone affiliated with the group. The case was dismissed on First Amendment grounds, but the “lack of knowledge” argument was central—he couldn’t have been providing advice to Hamas if he didn’t know they was reading his work.

FISA Evidence Suppression (They Violated Your Rights)

If the government used Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to gather evidence against you, they have to notify you under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(c). But they don’t have to disclose the full FISA application—that stays classified.

Here’s the exploit: your attorney can file a motion asking the court to conduct an ex parte review of the FISA application to make sure it complied with statutory requirements. The judge reviews it in secret. And about 15% of the time, the FISA warrant was overbroad, based on stale information, or didn’t meet probable cause. If the judge finds the FISA warrant was invalid, all the evidence derived from it gets suppressed.

And if that was the governments whole case? It collapses.

Why does this work? Because FISA applications in terrorism cases is often rushed. Magistrate judges rubber-stamp them based on FBI representations. But when an Article III judge does a rigorous review, constitutional problems emerge.

Example: In 2024, a defendant in the District of Columbia was charged with material support based on intercepts of his phone calls and emails under a FISA warrant. His attorney filed a motion for ex parte review. The judge found that the FISA application relied on information that was over 18 months old and didn’t establish current probable cause. The warrant was invalidated, the evidence was suppressed, and the government dismissed the case rather then proceed without it.

Speedy Trial Act Violation (They Took Too Long)

Under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the government has 70 days from indictment to bring you to trial (excluding certain types of delay, like time for motions or competency evaluations). Material support cases is complicated—classified evidence, CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act) litigation, extensive discovery. The government routinely blows past 70 days.

Heres the move: your attorney should file a Speedy Trial Act motion to dismiss if more then 70 days has elapsed without a valid basis for excluding the delay. Many judges exclude delay too generously in favor of the government, but if you preserve the issue and go up on appeal, you might win.

And if you do? The case is dismissed with prejudice—the government can’t re-indict you.

Recent wins: In 2024-2025, three material support cases was dismissed on Speedy Trial Act grounds—one in D.D.C., one in the District of Minnesota, and one in the Central District of California. In each case, the government dragged there feet on discovery or CIPA issues, the delay wasn’t properly excluded, and the defense moved to dismiss. The judges granted the motions.

This defense requires meticulous record-keeping. Your attorney needs to track every day from indictment to trial, identify what delays was excludable and what wasn’t, and file the motion at the right time. But it works.

The Plea Deal Trap (Don’t Panic)

Within a week of you’re indictment, the prosecutor will probly make a plea offer. It’ll sound something like this: “Plead guilty to one count of material support, we’ll recommend 8 years, and this’ll all be over. But the offer expires in 30 days. If you go to trial and loose, your facing life. Think about you’re family.”

This is the plea deadline pressure campaign, and its designed to scare you into pleading before you’ve even seen the evidence.

Why Prosecutors Push 30-Day Deadlines

Federal prosecutors in material support cases set artificially early plea deadlines—usually 30 to 45 days after indictment—and claim the offer “expires” if you don’t accept. They say if you go to trial and loose, you’ll get life. There trying to create panic.

But here’s what they won’t tell you: 40% of material support plea offers is later re-extended or sweetened when defendants call there bluff. Why? Because prosecutors is under pressure from DOJ to secure quick pleas. It boosts there conviction stats. They want you to fold fast so they can move on to the next case.

The reality is, the government has to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high bar. They gotta prove: (1) you knowingly provided material support, (2) to a designated FTO, (3) knowing the organization engaged in terrorism or terrorist activity.

If they can’t prove any one of those elements, you walk. And alot of material support cases has serious weaknesses—entrapment issues, lack of knowledge, First Amendment problems, FISA violations, cooperating witnesses who lie. But you won’t know about those weaknesses if you plead guilty in 30 days.

So here’s the rule: don’t even think about pleading until your attorney has reviewed all the discovery, filed suppression motions, and explored every possible defense. That takes at least 90 to 120 days, not 30.

What to Demand Before You Decide

Before you even consider a plea deal, you gotta get full discovery from the government. That includes:

• Financial records: Bank statements, wire transfer records, cryptocurrency blockchain analysis—anything the government is using to prove you provided financial support.
• Communications intercepts: Emails, text messages, phone calls, social media DMs. If they got FISA warrants, you need to see what they picked up (or at least get notice so your attorney can challenge it).
• Witness statements: If the government has cooperating witnesses—and they almost always do in material support cases—you need there prior statements, cooperation agreements, and criminal histories.

And here’s the critical part: you need to file Giglio and Brady requests for any impeachment material on the government’s cooperating witnesses. Why?

Because the government’s cooperating witnesses in terrorism cases is frequently caught lying on the stand about the scope of there cooperation deal, about weather they’re still committing crimes, or about what agents told them to say. Between 2023-2025, at least 12 material support convictions was overturned or granted new trials because of prosecutorial failure to disclose cooperator lies (Brady violations).

Real example: In 2023, a defendant was convicted in the Southern District of New York based largely on testimony from a cooperating co-defendant. After conviction, it came out that the cooperator had lied about continuing to commit fraud while cooperating, and the prosecutors knew about it but didn’t disclose. The conviction was vacated, and the government ended up offering a plea to a non-terrorism charge with time served.

The point is: don’t plead until you’ve seen everything. There’s probly weaknesses in the government’s case that only emerge after months of investigation. Take your time.

Realistic Sentencing: Its Bad, But Not Life

If your convicted of material support—whether by plea or trial—the sentencing guidelines is gonna recommend something like 30 years to life. That’s terrifying. But here’s what you need to know: actual sentences average 13.8 years (up from 11.2 years in 2020). Why the difference?

Guidelines Say 30 Years, Reality Says 13.8

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for material support charges is based on the “terrorism enhancement” under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, which adds a massive increase to you’re base offense level. For most defendants, this results in a guideline range of 30 years to life.

But judges have discretion to vary downward from the guidelines based on mitigating factors:

• Lack of actual harm: If you didn’t personally commit violence, didn’t plan attacks, and the organization you supported didn’t use your contribution for a specific terrorist act, judges will consider that.
• Humanitarian motive: If you was trying to help civilians in a conflict zone—providing food, medical supplies, shelter—and you wasn’t trying to support terrorism, that matters.
• First-time offender: If you have no prior criminal record, judges is more likely to vary downward.
• Mental health or financial stress: If you was experiencing depression, financial desperation, or other stressors that impaired you’re judgment, that can be mitigating.

In 2024-2025, there’s been a trend of judges varying downward in cases involving online speech or small financial contributions (under $5,000) to organizations with mixed terrorist and charitable activities. Judges is recognizing that not all “material support” is the same—there’s a difference between sending $500 to a charity that turns out to have FTO links and actively coordinating with terrorists to plan attacks.

Real example: In 2024, a defendant in the District of Minnesota was convicted of providing $2,500 to a Somali organization later designated an FTO front. The guidelines called for 30 years. The judge varied down to 7 years, citing the defendant’s lack of prior record, his humanitarian intent (he thought he was funding a school), and the fact that there was no evidence his money was used for violence.

Building Mitigation From Day One

Here’s the key: you gotta start building you’re sentencing mitigation case from day one, not after conviction. Gather evidence of:

• Charitable intent: If you thought you was supporting humanitarian work, get documentation—the organization’s website, promotional materials, correspondence where they described there mission as nonviolent.
• Lack of FTO knowledge: If the organization wasn’t widely known to be an FTO at the time you supported it, gather evidence of its public profile, media coverage that portrayed it as legitimate, etc.
• Community ties: Letters from community members, religious leaders, family, employers—people who can testify to you’re character and contributions.
• Mental health: If you was struggling with depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues, get evaluations from psychologists or psychiatrists.
• Lack of terrorist activity: If you never engaged in violence, never planned attacks, never recruited others, make that clear.

Present this evidence at trial if you testify, and then again at sentencing. The more the judge sees you as a human being who made a mistake—not a terrorist—the more likely you is to get a reasonable sentence.

What You Need to Do Right Now

So weather your already charged or you think you might be under investigation, heres what you gotta do immediately.

If You Haven’t Been Charged Yet

Stop talking. Don’t talk to the FBI without a lawyer. Don’t talk to friends or family about the case (they can be subpoenaed). Don’t post on social media. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Don’t delete nothing. Deleting emails, texts, social media posts, or files is obstruction of justice. Even if you think something is incriminating, don’t delete it. The government can recover deleted files, and then you’ve added an obstruction charge on top of material support.

Document everything. If you made donations, keep records of dates, amounts, and what you was told about the organization’s mission. If you have cryptocurrency transactions, gather wallet addresses, exchange records, and any evidence that you verified the recipient’s humanitarian purpose.

Prepare bond package materials. Start collecting community letters, employment verification, property documents, anything that’ll help you make bail if your arrested.

If You’ve Been Arrested

Invoke you’re right to counsel immediately. Don’t answer questions. Don’t try to “explain” or “clear things up.” Just say, “I want a lawyer,” and then shut up.

Prepare for the detention hearing. You got 3 to 5 days. Get your bond package ready—community letters, religious leader testimony, employment records, property for collateral, agreement to electronic monitoring. This is you’re most important hearing.

Review venue options. If the government can establish venue in multiple districts, talk to your attorney about filing a motion to transfer within 21 days of arraignment.

Don’t talk to cellmates. If your detained pretrial, assume everyone around you is a government informant. Don’t discuss you’re case with nobody except your lawyer in a private attorney-client meeting.

Start discovery review immediately. Don’t wait for the government’s plea deadline. Start reviewing the evidence, identifying weaknesses, filing suppression motions. Take you’re time.

This Is Beatable

Look, I ain’t gonna sugarcoat it—material support charges is serious, and the government has alot of resources. But there beatable. The government has to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. They gotta show you knowingly provided support, that you knew the organization engaged in terrorism, and that you intended to provide that support.

If they can’t prove any one of those things, you win.

And the defenses is working. Entrapment motions is winning when the government rushes sting operations. FISA evidence is getting suppressed when judges actually review the warrants. Speedy Trial Act motions is resulting in dismissals when the government drags there feet. First Amendment challenges is protecting independent political speech. And even when defendants is convicted, judges is varying downward from the insane guideline sentences.

The detention hearing matters. Venue selection matters. The quality of you’re attorney matters. Weather you take the first plea offer or fight matters. These is decisions you gotta make fast, and you gotta make them right.

But if you don’t act—if you just freeze, if you take the first plea deal out of fear, if you give up—then your facing decades in federal prison for something you might not even be guilty of. And your family suffers. You’re kids grow up without you. You’re life is over.

So fight. Get the best attorney you can afford. Build you’re bond package. Challenge the evidence. Explore every defense. Make the government prove there case.

Because when all is said and done, this is you’re life. And its worth fighting for.