President Donald Trump’s interest in designating “antifa” as a foreign terrorist organization could provide the government with new tools to prosecute the amorphous left-wing movement and, one former counterterrorism official argues, potential justification for using lethal force.
The president has already rhetorically targeted “antifa” as a terrorist entity through a largely symbolic executive order that holds no statutory teeth.
But on Wednesday a cohort of right-wing influencers and Trump-friendly journalists invited to the White House asked the administration to go further, and designate “antifa” as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO).
An FTO designation effectively functions as a ban by making it unlawful for any person in the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to the entity concerned.
“I’d be glad to do it,” Trump said. “I think it’s the kind of thing I’d like to do, if you’d like. Does everybody agree? If you agree, I agree. Let’s get it done.”
Trump turned to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is officially responsible for FTO designations.
“Marco, we’ll take care of it,” Trump said.
“Steve, are you okay with it?” Trump added, turning to Senior Advisor Stephen Miller.
“Yes, it’s true,” Miller replied. “There are extensive foreign ties, and I think that would be a very valid step to take.”
“Antifa” is short for antifascism, a global movement that dates back to Weimar Republic in Germany, and typically describes a decentralized movement that sometimes uses militant tactics to oppose white supremacy and other forms of authoritarianism.
Regardless, Trump cabinet members have made it clear that they consider “antifa” to be no different to drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan group which was added to the State Department’s terror list in February, or groups such as ISIS that are more typical of groups traditionally targeted by U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
“This network of antifa is just as sophisticated as MS-13, as TDA, as ISIS, as Hezbollah, as Hamas, as all of ’em,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Wednesday.
“They are just as dangerous. They have an agenda to destroy us, just like the other terrorists we’ve dealt with for many, many years.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi added: “Just like we did with cartels, we’re going to take this same approach, President Trump, with antifa. Destroy the entire organization, from top to bottom.”
Olivia Troye, who was counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Mike Pence in the first Trump administration, raised the question of whether the administration is signaling a willingness to use lethal force against individuals deemed to be “antifa.”
“I guess the question is, are we just going to start bombing random buildings where they think antifa is residing?” Troye said on Thursday, on the podcast The Left Hook with Wajahat Ali, after the host observed that the U.S. military has recently carried out strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.
“I know that sounds hyperbolic,” Troye said, “but what does that mean when Pam Bondi says that?”
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request from Raw Story to clarify Bondi’s remarks.
Miles Taylor, who was chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration, said on the same podcast that Bondi’s remarks have to be considered in context with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call, in a speech to generals in Virginia last week, to loosen rules of engagement.
Taylor also flagged Trump’s recommendation at the same meeting to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military” against an “enemy within.”
“We’re not talking about loosening the rules of engagement to go after Taliban fighters,” Taylor said. “We’re talking about loosening the rules of engagement to go after the domestic opposition. This is not hyperbole.”
The White House has claimed military strikes against alleged drug boats are in line with the law of armed conflict. Legal experts disagree.
Trump and members of his cabinet describe “antifa” as a single group, but have presented no evidence of any network responsible for coordinating left-wing violence exists.
Rather, the president’s recent counterterrorism memorandum, known as NSPM-7, blames an array of incidents of left-wing violence on an “umbrella of self-described ‘anti-fascism.’”
The memorandum names the core tenets of antifascism as “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
Beyond the specter of an extrajudicial offensive against “antifa,” an FTO designation would open perceived opponents of the Trump administration to prosecution for a broad array of activities that could be construed as “material support.”
The federal statute defines “material support and resources” to include “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel… and transportation.”
The U.S. government’s recent prosecution of Ashraf Al Safoo, an ISIS propagandist who operated in Chicago, illustrates how the material support provision could be used against “antifa” targets.
Al Safoo led the Khattab Media Foundation, described by one witness as “an unofficial ISIS media organization.” Following his bench trial in May, Al Safoo was convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and other offenses. He faces up to 130 years in prison.
The case against Al Safoo focused on his use of social media to encourage violence against ISIS’ perceived enemies and recruit for the organization. Federal prosecutors also proved Al Safoo made wire transfers of up to $400 to an ISIS leader in Syria, who testified that the money was spent to buy food and medicine for families in ISIS-controlled territory.
The government witness, a former “emir” for media operations for ISIS in Al-Anbar, in Iraq, testified that organizations such as Khattab Media Foundation “provided support to ISIS because they increased the amount of content ISIS could release and amplify,” according to a ruling issued by U.S. District Court Judge John Robert Blakey in August.
Blakey ruled that Al Safoo’s “activities were not independent advocacy or otherwise protected speech.” The judge found that Al Safoo’s media work on ISIS’ behalf constituted “intangible services.”
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court 2010 ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Blakey wrote that “expressive activity may be constitutionally limited when the support is addressed to, directed by, or coordinated with a foreign terrorist organization.
“Khattab Media Foundation existed, by its members’ own words (including defendant’s own admissions), to do just that: provide critical media services to ISIS at ISIS’s approval and direction, strictly adhering and complying with ISIS’s messaging and directives,” Blakey continued.
“This is exactly the type of material support through intangible services” the law “prohibits.”