On October 8, 2025, the atmosphere in the White House’s State Dining Room was tense and charged. President Trump, flanked by top advisers including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and FBI Director Kash Patel, convened a roundtable to discuss the antifa movement—a loosely organized, far-left collective opposed to fascism. The event, as reported by NPR, was anything but routine. The president had already signed an executive order labeling antifa a "domestic violent organization," a move whose legal teeth were, at best, uncertain due to the lack of federal provisions for domestic terrorism group designations.
But Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, pushed the envelope further. As right-wing influencers at the table pressed for a more aggressive stance, Trump asked, "Would you like to see it done? You think it would help? I'd be glad to do it. I think it's the kind of thing I'd like to do. Does everybody agree? If you agree, I agree. Let's get it done." He then turned to Secretary Rubio and declared, "Marco, we'll take care of that." The message was clear: the administration was seriously considering designating antifa as a foreign terrorist organization—a step with profound legal and social implications.
The State Department, unlike other federal agencies, holds the authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations. Such a designation is not merely symbolic; it carries the full weight of U.S. law, including the possibility of criminal charges for anyone providing "material support" to the group. This support could be as innocuous as a $10 gift card or as significant as financial and logistical aid. The penalty? Up to 20 years in prison. As Thomas Brzozowski, former counsel for domestic terrorism at the Justice Department, told NPR, "It would have a legal impact that would have a cascading effect across civil society, including social media organizations, civic organizations and everything in between. It would effectively criminalize activity that is associated with a diffuse—more of an ethos or a shared collective dissent to a lot of what the administration is doing."
The complexity lies in the very nature of antifa. Unlike groups such as ISIS or al-Qaida, antifa lacks a centralized leadership, hierarchy, or even a formal membership list. Jason Blazakis, who led the State Department’s office responsible for terrorist designations under both the Obama and first Trump administrations, explained, "First and foremost, antifa is not necessarily an organization. It is at best a movement of disparately linked individuals who are united based on an ideology, which is a belief that fascism is bad." He went on to challenge the feasibility of such a designation, saying, "I would really call on the State Department or the U.S. government to tell us who the leader of antifa is and where they are based. We've not heard anybody from the administration really talk about antifa's leadership and its organization structure."
Despite these legal and definitional hurdles, the drive to label antifa as a foreign terrorist organization is not without precedent—or political motivation. During his first term, Trump repeatedly blamed the political left and antifa for violence at social justice protests, particularly following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The Justice Department, under his direction, sought evidence of a funding network or leadership structure within antifa but found none. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress in 2020 that antifa is "not a group but rather an ideology," though he acknowledged investigations into individuals who identify as antifa.
The rhetoric from the White House has only intensified. After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this year, Trump declared, "There are radical left lunatics out there and we just have to beat the hell out of them." Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, went even further, claiming, "The Democratic party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization." Miller insisted that antifa has "extensive" foreign ties, arguing that a foreign terrorist designation "would be a very valid step to take."
Yet, as Blazakis and other experts pointed out, such a move would be legally fraught. The State Department’s criteria for designating a foreign terrorist organization require that the entity be an actual organization, be foreign, and engage in terrorism against Americans or U.S. interests. Antifa, by all credible accounts, fails to meet these tests. Still, Blazakis cautioned against complacency: "It's not necessarily something that we can ignore as a possibility that this administration, they want to pursue, essentially just stretch the truth, to fit its policy objective, in this case going after left-wing or progressives through the lens of using counterterrorism tools."
The ripple effects of such a designation would be immediate and far-reaching. Social media companies, which often align their content policies with government guidelines on dangerous organizations, would likely restrict or remove content related to antifa. They might also implement proactive monitoring and reporting mechanisms, fundamentally altering the nature of online discourse. As Brzozowski noted, "The social media piece is super important. That really in today's environment obviously is going to dictate in many respects what the broader public sees and what they don't see. So that's going to have an immediate impact on public discourse across the board."
Universities and progressive organizations could also find themselves in the crosshairs. Conferences touching on anti-fascism might be canceled, academic research curtailed, and insurance companies could refuse to cover institutions linked in any way to anti-fascist activities. Brzozowski painted a stark picture: "They're not going to insure these institutions if they touch anything that remotely concerns anti-fascism. And think about how broad that is. What does that even mean? It sounds crazy, Kafkaesque, but that's what this designation would bring into play."
Internationally, the Trump administration’s stance has found echoes among far-right allies in Hungary and the Netherlands, who have voiced support for declaring antifa a terrorist organization. Such moves, experts warn, could embolden similar crackdowns on dissent abroad, further blurring the line between legitimate protest and terrorism.
The administration’s pursuit of this designation is widely seen as a political tactic aimed at undermining left-wing and progressive groups. While supporters argue it’s a necessary step to preserve law and order, critics warn of the dangers of conflating ideology with terrorism—especially when the ideology in question is as diffuse and leaderless as antifa. As Brzozowski summed up, "The president himself during a roundtable at the White House turned to his senior advisers whose job it is to designate these entities and instructed them to do it, on TV. So yeah I think they might do it. And people are not ready for it. People are not ready for it. If that goes through, I'm telling you, unbelievable."
Whether the Trump administration will see this controversial plan through remains to be seen. What’s clear, however, is that the debate over antifa’s designation has already sparked a fierce national conversation about the boundaries of dissent, the reach of executive power, and the future of civil liberties in America.
