Trump Signs Order Labeling Antifa a Domestic Terrorist Organization Amid Rising Political Violence

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) – In a significant and controversial move, U.S. President Donald J. Trump on September 22, 2025, signed an executive order formally designating Antifa as a "domestic terrorist organization." This action, detailed in a Presidential Action document from the White House, asserts that Antifa is a "militarist, anarchist enterprise" that employs "a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide" with the explicit goal of overthrowing the United States Government and its law enforcement authorities.

The order mandates all relevant executive departments and agencies to "utilize all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations" conducted by or materially supported by Antifa, including prosecutorial actions against those who fund such operations.

The President's declaration comes amid a heated political climate and follows closely on the heels of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, an event that has been a focal point for renewed calls to address political violence.

While authorities have indicated the accused gunman, Tyler Robinson, had a "leftist ideology," no direct link to Antifa has been publicly established, as noted by Reuters and the BBC. Despite this, the Trump administration has framed the executive order as a necessary measure against what it describes as "radical left political violence."

The Administration's Stance: Antifa as a Coordinated Threat

According to Section 1 of the Executive Order, Antifa's activities include "coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists."

The order further alleges that Antifa "recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity," and employs "elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members."

The White House document concludes that this "organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation is domestic terrorism."

This designation is not unprecedented in Trump's rhetoric, as he previously expressed intentions to declare Antifa a terrorist organization in 2020.

Fox News reported that former acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf expressed approval for the latest move, stating it "needed to happen" and could lead to a shift in federal law enforcement priorities, with the Department of Justice and the FBI allocating resources toward investigating suspected Antifa members.

Wolf suggested that any Antifa targets facing criminal charges could see tougher sentences with terrorism enhancements, and federal law enforcement could conduct surveillance or place individuals on no-fly lists.

A Movement or an Ideology? Experts Raise Concerns

Despite the President's definitive executive order, the nature of Antifa itself has been a subject of considerable debate among experts and within legal circles.

As BBC Verify reported, in 2020, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress that Antifa was better defined as an ideology than as a formal organization. This sentiment is echoed by many, including the Congressional Research Service, which emphasizes that Antifa is a broad term encompassing a variety of radical views aligned with anarchism, communism, or socialism.

"Antifa," short for anti-fascist, is widely described as a loose, leaderless affiliation of mostly far-left activists, according to the BBC. Its origins trace back to German anti-fascist groups from the 1930s, gaining renewed prominence in the U.S. after Trump's 2016 election victory and the Charlottesville rally in 2017.

Al Jazeera highlights that Antifa is not a single group but a decentralized collective that opposes right-wing and fascist ideologies. Mark Bray, a historian and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, told Al Jazeera that "Antifa is a kind of politics, not a specific group," asserting that there is "no general headquarters or leader to get official recognition from."

This amorphous structure presents significant legal and practical challenges for the administration's new designation. Luke Baumgartner, a research fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism, told BBC Verify, "There is no legal mechanism I'm aware of that would formally establish any group as a domestic terror organisation."

Similarly, the New York Times noted that "anti-fascism, like fascism itself, is a broad political ideology rather than a specific organization, and the U.S. does not have a domestic terrorism law."

 Federal law allows for the designation of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTOs), enabling the freezing of assets and criminalization of material support, but no equivalent domestic terrorism law exists.

Clashes, Violence, and the "Doxxing" Tactic

Critics of Antifa, including the Trump administration, point to instances of violence associated with the movement. The Executive Order itself accuses Antifa of using "illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence."

The BBC and Al Jazeera have reported on specific incidents, such as the 2017 clashes in Berkeley, California, where masked activists attacked right-wing protesters, leading to arrests and injuries.

During the unrest following the killing of George Floyd in 2020, Michael Reinoehl, a self-proclaimed Antifa activist, shot and killed a supporter of a far-right group in Portland, Oregon, before being killed by police.

Al Jazeera also details incidents such as a 2012 Chicago restaurant attack and further clashes in Charlottesville in 2017.

Beyond physical altercations, Antifa activists are known for "doxxing," the tactic of releasing the identities and personal details of those they deem to be far-right activists, with the aim of social ostracization or job dismissal, as reported by the BBC.

Online forums have shown self-identified Antifa members defending actions like the shooting of Charlie Kirk, as BBC Verify observed.

First Amendment Concerns and Legal Ambiguities

A core concern for legal experts revolves around the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech and the right of association.

Professor David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, emphasized to BBC Verify that the "First Amendment protects the right of association, which encompasses the right of individuals to form groups and prohibits the government from interfering with the operations of those groups, unless of course, they have violated the law."

He added, "The president's designation of such a group as a 'major terrorist organisation' does not change those fundamental constitutional rights."

Alex Nowrasteh, a vice president at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that while the President's announcement carries little immediate legal weight, an executive order could transform his words into action.

However, Nowrasteh also stressed that peacefully adhering to an antifascist ideology is "absolutely protected speech" under the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) echoed these constitutional concerns, with Hina Shamsi stating, "President Trump seems hellbent on targeting real or perceived political opponents based on their constitutionally protected beliefs and speech, and we should all be very clear that he is jeopardizing everyone’s First Amendment rights," according to Fox News.

Brad Evans, professor of political violence at Bath University, warned BBC Verify that Antifa's lack of organizational structure "offers a remarkable opportunity to extend the [government's] remit and apply it to anybody who may be assumed to belong to an organisation that is ill-defined."

This, he argued, could lead to a situation where "anybody suspected of belonging to Antifa, would need to disprove their association. The dangers of overreach are all too apparent."

Funding and the Future of Enforcement

The Executive Order specifically calls for investigations into those funding Antifa operations. However, the decentralized and often secretive nature of Antifa's funding mechanisms poses a significant challenge.

Al Jazeera reported that because Antifa is not a cohesive group, identifying and collating a list of financiers is nearly impossible, as various autonomous groups have varied and often undisclosed funding sources.

Historian Mark Bray told Al Jazeera that "Antifa groups do not have large budgets at all, and what they have is basically crowdsourced or generated from members themselves. It’s mostly for bail, really." He cautioned against the "common right-wing conspiracy theory that there are shadowy financiers like George Soros playing puppet master behind everything the left does."

The New York Times pointed out that even with the executive order, the government already possesses the authority to "investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations" by any movement. The core legal ambiguity remains the designation of a domestic entity as a "terrorist organization" in the absence of a specific federal statute.

Mary McCord, a former senior Department of Justice official, told Al Jazeera that such attempts would "raise significant First Amendment concerns."

Ultimately, the executive order's practical implications remain to be seen. While President Trump's administration is clearly signaling an intensified focus on what it perceives as left-wing political violence, the lack of established legal mechanisms for designating domestic terrorist organizations and the robust protections of the First Amendment suggest that any sweeping enforcement actions will likely face considerable legal challenges and public scrutiny.

The debate over Antifa — whether it is a dangerous organization or a loosely defined ideology — will undoubtedly continue to be a central feature of the U.S. political landscape.