Trump antifa terror claim faces stern test in trial of ICE firework protesters

A trial set to begin on Tuesday in Fort Worth, Texas will test whether President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice can use a criminalized notion of “antifa” to convict nine anti-ICE activists of attempted murder and terrorism, after they shot fireworks and vandalized government vehicles.

On July 4 last year, most of the defendants showed up at the Prairieland ICE detention facility 25 miles south of Fort Worth to put on a fireworks display for immigrant detainees. A smaller group used spray paint to graffiti vehicles in the parking lot.

They dressed in black and concealed their faces with masks — a tactic commonly known as “black bloc.” One activist, former Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, carried an AR-15 rifle. A wagon nearby was stocked with an additional rifle, body armor and bottled water. One activist had guns in his car.

The defendants say they intended to hold a noise demonstration and set off fireworks to cheer up detainees. The government claims the fireworks were meant to draw officers out of the facility and elicit a law enforcement response.

About 45 minutes after the activists arrived, the government alleges, Song opened fire and struck a local police officer, Lt. Thomas Gross, who returned fire. Treated for his injuries, Gross was able to return to full duty within two months.

The indictment suggests that when the shots were fired, the other activists intended to retrieve guns and escalate an attack, based at least in part on a command allegedly yelled by Song: “Get to the rifles!”

Statements from some defendants and their lawyers suggest they were blindsided by the shooting and fled in terror.

The 12-count indictment, which describes the group as an “antifa cell,” charges four defendants alongside Song with attempted murder of law enforcement officers, even though the government acknowledges Song was the only shooter. A larger cohort is charged alongside Song with providing material support for terrorists.

‘Criminalizing speech’

Following the assassination last September of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, President Trump issued an executive order “designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.” The order describes “antifa” — a decentralized movement of people who oppose fascism — as “a militaristic, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.”

About three weeks later, the first indictment against the Prairieland defendants repeated the language of Trump’s order almost completely.

The indictment described the defendants as members of “a North Texas Antifa cell,” while defining “antifa” as “a militant enterprise made up of individuals and small groups … which explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law.”

As part of the government’s effort to build an “enterprise” case around the defendants’ supposed adherence to “antifa” ideology and hold them jointly liable for the shooting, prosecutors have highlighted some defendants’ involvement in printing political literature.

The indictment describes three as being “part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called ‘zines.’”

During their detention hearing last September, FBI Special Agent Joseph Clark Wiethorn described a search warrant executed on the Fort Worth home of defendants Ines and Elizabeth Soto, a married couple.

“We discovered, for lack of a better word, a printing production with multiple commercial-grade equipment, paper binders, cutters, industrial copiers, all for producing what we have discovered to be anarchist-type material and reading,” Wiethorn testified.

The government plans to call Kyle Shideler, director for homeland security and counterterrorism at the far-right Center for Security Policy, as an expert witness.

Shideler endorsed the government’s definition of “antifa” in the Prairieland case before a U.S. Senate subcommittee last October. He touted the material support for terrorists statute as a tool to crack down on “antifa.”

“These networks can be targeted for engaging in material support for terrorism,” Shideler told lawmakers. “We are not talking about speech; we are talking about manifestos describing how to overthrow the government and how to do that with violence.”

Lydia Koza, whose wife Autumn Hill is among the defendants charged with attempted murder, told Raw Story she believes the government’s case is all about speech.

“They’re trying to throw everybody who could be even slightly ideologically opposed to Trump into this bucket of ‘antifa’ so they can be prosecuted,” she said.

“This is a huge reason why this case should be alarming to everyone. This is criminalizing speech. There are precedents in American history, and none of them are good.”

‘Peaceful demonstration’

“My understanding is that everybody thought this was pretty standard and intended to be a peaceful demonstration, a noise demonstration,” Koza said. “Everybody anticipated coming home.”

Hill was arrested the day after the July 4 action, when the FBI broke down her door in the middle of dinner and marched her outside barefoot.

During Hill’s detention hearing, Agent Wiethorn testified that he didn’t know where Hill was in proximity to Song when the shooting took place, or even if she was still at the detention facility.

Cody Cofer, Hill’s lawyer, asked Wiethorn to explain how Hill “helped” Song.

“I think by participating in the attack with Mr. Song would be helping him,” Wiethorn replied.

“And so, how did Ms. Hill participate in the attack?” Cofer asked.

“With the presence with — showing up in black bloc — showing up and shooting off fireworks into the facility, participating in this group that had organized themselves, had planned, had prepared, had brought weapons, body armor, medical kits,” Wiethorn said.

The indictment charges Hill, Song and three others with the attempted murder of not only the police officer who responded to the scene, but also of two ICE corrections officers who were not injured.

Similarly, the lawyer for Elizabeth Soto asked Agent Wiethorn if there was any evidence her client “was anything but present” on the night of the shooting.

Wiethorn said Soto participated in planning chats on Signal, although elsewhere he testified that there had been no discussion of shooting at police. Wiethorn also said Soto traveled to the event with her husband, who brought “multiple trauma kits.”

Soto “was aware of what they were doing, was part of this group that had an understanding of overall intent,” the agent testified.

‘Six inches from being murdered’

Zachary Evetts, a defendant charged with attempted murder, told Anne Speckhard, a psychology professor who interviewed him in pre-trial detention, he went to Prairieland anticipating a “peaceful, although loud” demonstration, according to an expert report she submitted on his behalf.

Evetts told Speckhard, who leads the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism at Georgetown University, he was terrified when he heard gunshots.

“I’m running and see two correction officers, one female, and there is gunfire to the left of me,” Evetts said. “I was afraid I was going to get shot. I was very afraid. I have to run now or I’ll die.”

Speckhard concluded that the “available evidence establishes that the defendants prepared for a noise demonstration involving fireworks … undermining claims of planned violent escalation.”

Prosecutors have asked Judge Mark Pittman to remove Speckhard as an expert witness, objecting to “improper opinion testimony.” Pittman said last week Speckhard’s language “gives the court pause” but declined to bar her testimony, saying he was open to revisiting the matter at trial.

Koza told Raw Story she believes the government included Hill in the case because to do otherwise would be a tacit acknowledgement that shooting off fireworks doesn’t add up to a conspiracy to escalate a violent attack.

“One of the things I noticed during the preliminary hearing is that the government is careful to not say, ‘Protest,’” Koza said. “They say, ‘Ambush, ambush, ambush,’ and, ‘Attack, attack, attack.’ They want to say that it isn’t possible that anything legitimate happened that night. I think prosecuting her is part of making the case that there is no good protester in this instance.”

During the detention hearing last September, previewing the argument the government is likely to make at trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith cited anarchist zines printed in the Sotos’ garage.

“These individuals were involved in a long-running conspiracy that started with this philosophy centered around what I’ve called and labeled the printers,” Smith said. “They’re the ideological heads of this group. They are rendering assistance passing this information, this antifa information, this deep-seated hatred of the government.”

Moving on to the gunfire on July 4 outside the ICE facility, Smith again cited black bloc, fireworks and vandalism.

“They acted in concert,” he said, adding: “They don’t have to each hold a gun, but they’re part of a common plan and scheme: Destruction and murder. Attempted murder in this case. Six inches from being murdered.”

Beyond the potential culpability of the eight defendants involved in setting off fireworks, vandalism and producing zines, the actions of Song, the one person alleged to have fired a weapon, loom over the trial.

During the detention hearing, Song’s lawyer wrested an acknowledgement from Agent Wiethorn that he didn’t know if Lt. Thomas Gross unholstered his weapon before Song fired.

Speckhard wrote that “available evidence establishes that the shooting was not premeditated or coordinated and may have occurred as an impulsive response to aggressive police action by a single individual, rather than as part of a planned or directed attack.”

Prosecutors plan to call Gross to testify. In a witness list filed with the court, Song indicated he intends to take the stand in his own defense.