Trump orders crackdown on 'domestic terrorists' in escalation of campaign against political rivals

President Donald Trump on Thursday directed his administration to crack down on backers of what he described as “left-wing terrorism,” naming two top Democratic donors as he alleged, without evidence, a vast conspiracy to finance violent protests against the government. The executive action marks another escalation in a political battle in which Trump has repeatedly cast his opponents as security threats and sought to wield federal power to punish perceived enemies.

The order places the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in the lead role, while directing agencies across the administration, including the Treasury Department, to work together “to identify and disrupt financial networks that fund domestic terrorism and political violence.” The White House said the effort would span multiple agencies in order to trace sources of funding for agitators and anarchists and to disrupt those streams. The move comes as Trump frames a broader, ongoing campaign to constrain Democratic organizing and fundraising in the name of national security.

The president publicly named George Soros and Reid Hoffman as possible funders of the violence, saying, “If they are funding these things, they're going to have some problems.” In remarks during the Oval Office signing, Trump implied that a broader, clandestine network finances what he described as agitators and anarchists who disrupt government operations. He repeated that refrain earlier in the week, linking the crackdown to previous incidents of civil unrest, and he cast the effort as a historic, all‑of‑government attempt to combat left-wing terrorism.

The executive order follows a string of actions Trump has described as efforts to confront political violence and to deter opponents from organizing. It arrives after a spate of violent episodes that Trump argues were connected to Democrats’ political left, though authorities have not identified a single, cohesive domestic terrorist network behind those acts. Earlier this month, a conservative activist was killed in an incident linked to political rhetoric, and a shooting outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas left a detainee dead and two others wounded; investigators have not publicly tied those cases to a wider conspiracy.

Soros’s Open Society Foundations pushed back, saying the accusations were politically motivated attacks on civil society meant to silence speech and undermine the First Amendment right to free expression. “These accusations are politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with and undermine the First Amendment right to free speech,” the foundations said in a statement before Trump’s announcement. Hoffman, a PayPal and LinkedIn co‑founder who has funded Democratic causes, did not respond to requests for comment.

Observers cautioned that there is no established domestic list of terrorist organizations comparable to foreign designations, raising questions about the scope and enforcement mechanisms of the order. Some officials noted that, while the State Department maintains lists of foreign terror groups, there is no equivalent framework for designating domestic organizations as terrorist, partly due to First Amendment protections that govern political advocacy and nonprofit activity.

The order also signals a broader pattern in which Trump has used high‑profile terrorism rhetoric to justify investigations and audits of political opponents. Earlier this week, Trump designated antifa, a decentralized movement rather than a single organization, as a domestic terrorist organization. A former FBI official has said antifa is more of an ideology than a tightly organized group, which complicates the legal basis for such a designation and underscores the political sensitivity of the move.

At the same time, the White House has acknowledged that the administration faces questions about how to implement a domestic terrorism designation and how to apply tax rules to nonprofit organizations alleged to fund political violence. The order directs the Internal Revenue Service to withdraw tax‑exempt status from organizations identified as funding political violence, a step that would have broad implications for nonprofit groups that engage in advocacy and civic participation.

Critics argued the actions amount to political retaliation rather than a clear, evidence‑based national security strategy. They noted that Trump has repeatedly blamed political opponents for violence while offering little substantiation for broader conspiracies, a pattern that complicates the public’s understanding of risk and safety. Democratic lawmakers urged caution, stating that policies aimed at curtailing political activity should be guided by due process, robust disclosure requirements, and careful legal scrutiny rather than executive threats.

The administration has cited a few violent incidents to justify sweeping measures, but legal and civil‑liberties advocates worry about the potential chilling effect on charitable giving, civil society groups, and political engagement. They argue that broad designations and financial penalties could undermine legitimate advocacy and fundraising, including for organizations that work on voting rights, immigration policy, or social justice—areas central to many Democratic campaigns and causes.

In the coming weeks, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are expected to scrutinize the scope of the order and its practical implications. The administration has not provided a detailed envelope of enforcement powers or a clear list of target organizations, and questions remain about how the government would identify funding networks and what standards would apply to determine funding of political violence.

For now, the White House asserts that the action is a necessary, measured response to perceived threats from organized political violence and that it will be carried out with checks and balances across federal agencies. Critics, however, say the move risks politicizing the federal law enforcement apparatus and using national security language to suppress political dissent. As with other high‑visibility measures in this administration, the true test will be in the legal framework supporting enforcement, the evidence, and the extent to which it can withstand judicial and congressional scrutiny.