Trump's War on Protest: Antifa

Donald Trump's decision to call antifa a "domestic terror organization" is the most recent example in a larger campaign to criminalize protest. However, despite what this may sound like, this doesn't have any basis in law and is not the same as declaring it a terrorist organization. The term "domestic terror organization" has no basis in U.S. law, but that has not stopped Trump from using it for his rhetoric. In 2020, he made identical claims during the Black Lives Matter protests. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, Trump is using his death to stretch the definition of terrorism to cover a range of dissent from the left. The real danger isn't the label itself, but how it can be weaponized against anyone who opposes his agenda.

This government strategy for creating "domestic terror" laws is only done to suit the administration's interests. After the January 6th insurrection, there were calls for new statutes to target such violent extremists, but in those cases, Trump did the opposite and issued a blanket pardon for all rioters, including those who attacked the Capitol. Instead, domestic terrorism prosecutions are being used as a form of political policing, making it clear that dissent is a threat to state order.

The vagueness of what "antifa" means makes the potential for abuse worse. Antifa is not a formal organization; rather, it is a political tendency for antifascism, meaning that nearly any leftist protest could fall under the term. That looseness is what allows Trump to generalize all protestors, and suggest that the funders of any left-wing organizations should be investigated for "financing terrorism." The statements are less about specific criminal behavior and more about creating a culture where the opposition can be targeted.

Even if legal action isn't taken, financial repression could be used. Treasury sanctions powers could apply to protesters, cutting activists off from banking, housing, and jobs. Citizens who simply voice criticism of Trump's policies could be grouped into the same bubble as terror supporters and see a lifetime devoid of opportunity. If protest organizers are equated with ISIS extremists, then it is possible to choke movements from starting, from financial isolation, even if no arrests occur.

Even where the law does not directly support repression, the chilling effect is real. As The Intercept noted, ordinary citizens may simply stay home rather than risk being miscast as terrorists. This effect is amplified by Attorney General Pam Bondi's flirtation with prosecuting "hate speech," a category so broad it could encompass any criticism of the administration. Though she backtracked, the message was clear: protest could be punishable. That message resonates with Trump's base, but it also creates a climate of fear that drains the vitality from democratic life.

What is at stake here isn't just the right to free speech through marching in the street, but the ability for the people to be able to contest power. If any protest is equivalent to terrorism, then democracy itself is hollowed out. Trump, throughout his term, has viewed dissent more as hostility against his movement, rather than civic participation, and has shown he is willing to take drastic measures to prevent any condemnation. His antifa decree is just a single example of this worldview.