Trump Designates Antifa a Domestic Terrorist Organization in New Executive Order
Administration expands definition of Antifa and directs agencies to target operations, though legal questions persist
In a move described by the White House as a crackdown on violence, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. The order provides what the administration calls the broadest formal definition to date of the movement and directs federal agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any illegal operations attributed to Antifa.
Antifa is a decentralized, largely leaderless movement that has long resisted a single organizational structure. The order frames Antifa as a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law. It says Antifa actions include armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other officers, and the routine doxxing of and threats against political figures and activists. The designation is not a formal designation of a U.S. criminal group but an executive directive intended to broaden the tools available to pursue people and groups tied to those activities.
The order acknowledges there is no domestic terror law and signals that the designation could be used to target a wide range of protest movements, depending on how agencies interpret illegal operations. Because Antifa lacks a cohesive national leadership, observers have noted that the practical effect will depend on how prosecutors and law enforcement apply it to individual incidents rather than to a centralized organization.
Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of labeling Antifa as a terror organization since his first term, revisiting the topic during the COVID era and again after George Floyd protests. The White House says the move reflects a broader effort to crack down on violence from what it describes as a rising left-wing movement. On Truth Social, the president said he would designate Antifa as a major terrorist organization and that organizations funding Antifa should be investigated legally. The White House also pointed to materials linked to protests as evidence of Antifa’s aims.
Antifa movements rose to prominence in 2017 after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, when clashes drew national attention to anti-fascist activism. Trump asserted that some protesters on the anti-fascist side had engaged in violence, echoing a broader political motif he would return to in later years. He continued to attack Antifa after George Floyd’s murder in May 2020 and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, when he floated the idea of designating Antifa as a terrorist organization.
Legal experts have noted that there is no domestic framework to designate a domestic terrorist organization and that the order’s practical effect is uncertain. Faiza Patel, a senior counselor at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted the lack of a domestic terror designation authority and the ambiguity over how the order would be applied. Some critics warn the order could undermine First Amendment rights and legitimate protest if used to target ordinary protesters or advocacy groups. Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute described the move as flawed in principle, arguing that there is no constitutional or statutory authority to designate a domestic civil-society organization as a domestic terrorist organization.
Democratic lawmakers have expressed concerns about civil liberties and the potential for political misuse. Bennie Thompson, ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, suggested the order could enable the administration to stifle dissent and investigate groups it dislikes, potentially labeling Americans as terrorists. A White House spokesperson highlighted that the Kirk case included an anti-fascist message, reinforcing the administration’s stance on Antifa as part of a broader effort to confront violence linked to this movement.
As agencies begin to translate the order into guidance and enforcement, observers will watch for how it is applied in practice and whether it faces legal challenges that could shape its scope and longevity. The absence of a clear statutory framework means the decision will likely be scrutinized in courts and by civil liberties groups in the weeks ahead. The coming days and weeks are expected to reveal how aggressively agencies interpret the designation and how the balance between public safety and civil rights is handled.