Trump Takes Aim at Antifa with New Executive Order

The Legal Problem

Here’s the big issue: unlike with foreign terrorist groups, there’s no actual law that lets the president designate a domestic group as a terrorist organization. The U.S. legal system lacks that mechanism. As researcher Luke Baumgartner explained, “You can’t prosecute an ideology.”

Plus, “domestic terrorism” isn’t even a crime you can be charged with under federal law, though most states have their own domestic terrorism statutes.

Wait, So How Does It Work for Foreign Groups?

Good question! For foreign terrorist organizations, there’s actually a transparent legal process that’s been in place since 1996. The Secretary of State can designate a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization if it meets three specific criteria: it must be a foreign organization, it must engage in terrorist activity or have the capability and intent to do so, and its activities must pose a threat to U.S. nationals or national security.

Once designated, there are real consequences: members can be barred from entering the U.S., it becomes illegal to provide material support to the group, and U.S. financial institutions have to freeze any of the organization’s assets. The entire process involves consultation among the State Department, Treasury, and Attorney General, with Congress receiving a seven-day advance notice before any designation becomes official.

However, the key difference is that this entire framework only applies to foreign organizations. There’s simply no equivalent system for domestic groups, which is why Trump’s order is legally murky.

A Deeper Look at Antifa’s History

To understand antifa in America, you need to go back further than Charlottesville. The tactics and organizing style associated with antifa today have roots in the anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The Seattle WTO Protests (1999) – The “Battle of Seattle”

In November 1999, Seattle hosted a World Trade Organization ministerial conference, and what happened became a watershed moment for left-wing activism in America. At least 40,000 protesters descended on the city, comprising labor unions, environmentalists, student groups, anarchists, and more, united in opposition to corporate globalization and what they saw as undemocratic global trade policies.

This is where the “black bloc” tactic really entered the American consciousness. A few hundred anarchists, dressed in black clothing and masks to conceal their identities, engaged in targeted property destruction against multinational corporations like Starbucks, Nike, and Gap. They weren’t affiliated with the larger peaceful protest groups, but they were part of the same anti-globalization wave.

The protests successfully disrupted the WTO opening ceremony and forced the city into a state of emergency. Over 500 people were arrested. The police chief resigned in the aftermath. And critically, this became the template for how militant left-wing activists would organize for the next decade – decentralized, using “diversity of tactics,” with black bloc property destruction happening alongside peaceful civil disobedience.

The Anti-Globalization Era (2000-2001)

Following the Seattle protests, similar demonstrations occurred at major economic summits. Activists attempted to shut down meetings of the IMF, World Bank, and G20 gatherings worldwide. The G20 protests became particularly associated with violence and property destruction:

2009 London G20 Summit: While most protests were peaceful, black bloc tactics led to property damage and violent clashes with police. Over 100 protesters were arrested, and a bystander died after being pushed by police.

2010 Toronto G20 Summit: Over 20,000 police were deployed against protesters, with black bloc activists causing significant vandalism to businesses. More than 1,000 people were arrested – the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. At least 40 shops were vandalized, resulting in over $750,000 in damage.

2017 Hamburg G20 Summit: Perhaps the most violent of the modern G20 protests. Thousands of protesters, including many identifying as anti-fascist activists from across Europe, clashed with police. Activists threw Molotov cocktails, set vehicles on fire, and tried to storm the convention center. Nearly 500 police officers were injured, and parts of Hamburg looked like a war zone.

These weren’t explicitly “antifa” events – they were anti-globalization and anti-capitalist protests. However, they established the tactics, aesthetic (black clothing and masks), and decentralized organizing model that American antifa would later adopt.

The American Antifa Movement Takes Shape

The antifa movement as we know it today in the U.S. traces more directly back to people opposing neo-Nazis and the KKK in the 1980s. An Oregon group was the first to actually use “antifa” in its name back in 2007. But the movement remained relatively small until Trump’s election in 2016.

The Shift Away from Anti-Globalization

So what happened to all that anti-globalization energy? The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the landscape of left-wing activism in America.

Many activists and scholars consider the anti-globalization movement a “political casualty” of the War on Terror. The movement that seemed unstoppable after Seattle essentially existed in its prime for less than two years, from November 1999 to September 2001. After 9/11, the political environment became more hostile to street protests, and public attention shifted dramatically away from economic issues to national security and terrorism.

The focus of left-wing activism pivoted hard toward anti-war organizing. Many of the same people who had been protesting the WTO were now organizing against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The call for the massive February 15, 2003, global protests against the Iraq War actually came from the European Social Forum—showing how the anti-globalization network transformed into an anti-war network. An anti-globalization rally planned for September 29, 2001 in New York went ahead as an anti-war demonstration instead.

Summit protests continued, but they were fewer, smaller, and got less media coverage. International meetings started being held in remote locations (like Doha, Qatar) specifically to avoid protests. And frankly, after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, opposing American militarism became a more urgent priority for many activists than opposing the IMF.

From Anti-Globalization to Anti-Fascism

The tactics, organizing style, and aesthetics from the anti-globalization era—black bloc formations, decentralized organizing, “diversity of tactics,” property destruction as protest—didn’t disappear. They evolved and were adopted by different movements focused on various enemies.

The Occupy Wall Street Connection (2011)

There’s an interesting intermediate chapter here: Occupy Wall Street. In September 2011, protesters set up camp in New York’s Zuccotti Park to protest economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of Wall Street on government. The movement spread globally within weeks, with hundreds of Occupy camps appearing worldwide.

Occupy Wall Street shared DNA with both the anti-globalization movement and what would become modern antifa. It employed similar tactics, including a decentralized organization, consensus-based decision-making, occupation of public spaces, and a refusal to have clear leadership or specific demands. Some individual Occupy protesters were members of anarchist or antifa groups, and black bloc tactics occasionally appeared at Occupy events.

But Occupy was primarily focused on economic inequality—the “We are the 99%” slogan—rather than directly confronting the far right. The movement largely fizzled out after police cleared the camps in late 2011 and early 2012. However, it served as a training ground and networking opportunity for a generation of left-wing activists who would go on to participate in later movements, including the resurgent antifa activism after 2016.

By the time Trump was elected in 2016, the fight was no longer primarily about corporate globalization or economic inequality. The perceived threat had shifted to the resurgence of white nationalism, neo-Nazism, and what activists saw as creeping fascism. The movement exploded into public consciousness during the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally in 2017, where antifa activists physically confronted white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

It’s a fascinating evolution: the same militant tactics that were used to fight McDonald’s and Starbucks in 1999, applied to combating economic inequality in 2011, were now being used to fight the Proud Boys and neo-Nazis in 2017. The enemy changed, but the playbook stayed largely the same.

Trump tried to designate antifa as a terrorist organization back in 2020 during protests following George Floyd’s death, but he never followed through. Even his own FBI Director Chris Wray described antifa as “a movement or an ideology,” not a single organization.

Do you know if this has been tried before?

Interestingly, yes – sort of. Earlier in Trump’s second term, the administration designated several Mexican drug cartels and transnational gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This included groups like the Sinaloa Cartel, MS-13, and Tren de Aragua.

Now, these groups are technically “foreign” organizations based outside the U.S., even though they operate within American borders. But here’s the thing: they’re actual organizations with leadership structures, territories they control, and identifiable members. You can point to who runs the Sinaloa Cartel. You can identify MS-13 members. They have organizational hierarchies.

The cartel designations were controversial, too – Mexico’s government strongly opposed them, worried about the effects on tourism and investment, and was concerned they might justify U.S. military operations in Mexico. However, at least legally, these groups met the “foreign organization” requirement, albeit barely.

Antifa is entirely different. It’s not based abroad, it has no structure, and most importantly, it’s not really an organization at all. So this designation is pushing into entirely new and legally questionable territory.

What the White House Says

The White House fact sheet points to various attacks and threats against law enforcement and pro-Trump events over recent years, claiming some were carried out by people who identified with antifa. They’re also citing Kirk’s assassination, even though authorities say the suspected shooter, Tyler Robinson, had become “more political,” but haven’t released evidence connecting him to antifa specifically.

The executive order itself makes much stronger claims. It describes antifa as “a militarist, anarchist enterprise” that coordinates violence nationwide, recruits and trains members, and uses “elaborate means” to conceal its operations and funding. Essentially, the White House is arguing that antifa operates like an underground organization that’s just really good at hiding its structure.

But Is Antifa Actually an Organization?

This is where it gets contentious. The White House’s characterization directly contradicts what most experts, law enforcement officials, and research organizations have consistently said about antifa.

The consensus view from researchers, intelligence agencies, and even Trump’s own former FBI Director Christopher Wray is that antifa is a decentralized movement or ideology, not an organization. Here’s what that actually looks like on the ground:

Some small local groups use “Antifa” in their name, such as Rose City Antifa in Portland. These groups might have some internal structure, but they’re independent of each other with no national coordination. Most people who show up to counter-protests identifying as antifa aren’t members of anything – they’re individuals who share an anti-fascist ideology and show up to oppose far-right gatherings.

Think of it this way: “environmentalist” is an ideology that many people share, and there are organized environmental groups, but there’s no single “Environmentalist” organization with a CEO and membership cards. Antifa works similarly.

The movement does share some common tactics and loose principles – like opposing fascist rallies, doxxing perceived enemies, and sometimes using property destruction or violence. Some groups coordinate at the local level for specific events. However, there’s no evidence of a national command structure, membership rolls, leadership hierarchy, or a coordinated funding network that one’d expect from an actual organization.

As University of Pittsburgh professor Michael Kenney put it, “There is no single organization called antifa. That’s not the way these activists have ever organized themselves.” Even law enforcement has acknowledged this; one internal assessment noted an inability to penetrate Antifa’s “diffuse and decentralized organizational structure.”

So What’s the Argument That It IS an Organization?

The White House’s position seems to be that the coordination and tactics displayed at protests, combined with the existence of some named groups and what they describe as sophisticated operational security, all add up to something more organized than it appears. They’re essentially arguing that antifa might appear decentralized, but that’s by design – it’s actually a well-coordinated network that operates in a way that makes it difficult for law enforcement to track.

Critics would argue that this is unfounded – that what appears to be coordination is actually just ideologically aligned individuals making similar choices independently. The “operational security” (wearing masks, using encrypted apps) is a basic protest tactic used by activists across the political spectrum, not evidence of a sophisticated underground organization.

The bottom line is that whether Antifa qualifies as an “organization” is at the heart of the legal controversy surrounding this designation.

What Happens Next?

That’s the million-dollar question. Without a legal framework for domestic terrorist designations, it’s unclear what practical effect this order will have. The administration could make antifa-related incidents a higher priority for federal law enforcement; however, beyond that, the path forward is unclear.

Who Could Even Challenge This in Court?

Here’s where things get really interesting. For foreign terrorist organization designations, the organization itself can challenge the designation in court within 30 days of its publication. Groups like Hamas and others have actually done this successfully in various countries.

But with antifa? That’s basically impossible. Since antifa isn’t a formal organization with any structure, leadership, or membership, there’s no “Antifa Inc.” that can walk into the D.C. Circuit Court and file an appeal. There’s no board of directors, no headquarters, no official representatives who could claim to speak for “antifa” as a whole.

The only way this designation might get challenged is if someone gets arrested or prosecuted for allegedly providing support to “antifa.” Then they challenge the designation as part of their defense. Or civil liberties groups could file a lawsuit arguing that the designation is unconstitutional or violates someone’s rights. But even then, they’d have to establish what lawyers call “standing” – basically proving the designation has directly harmed them.

It’s a legal Catch-22: the designation might be unconstitutional precisely because there’s no organization to designate, but that same lack of organization means there’s no clear plaintiff to challenge it in court.