On Monday, September 22, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order officially designating the anti-fascist movement known as antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, setting off a cascade of political debate and legal uncertainty across the United States. The move, which follows the high-profile assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has reignited fierce arguments over the boundaries of protest, free speech, and the government’s authority to crack down on extremist groups.
According to reporting by The Hill, Trump’s order grants broad new powers to government agencies, allowing them to investigate not only operations directly conducted by antifa, but also any activity where an antifa member is suspected of providing material support. The order alleges that antifa “uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide,” with the stated goal of overthrowing the government and law enforcement. It further claims that individuals associated with antifa coordinate with other organizations to “spread, foment, and advance political violence and suppress lawful political speech.” The order concludes, “This organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation is domestic terrorism.”
The executive order comes just days after Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was murdered during a speaking event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. The killing sent shockwaves through conservative circles and prompted renewed calls for action against what many on the right perceive as escalating left-wing extremism. As reported by The Hill, the Trump administration had pledged to crack down on left-wing groups in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, with Vice President Vance specifically stating that the administration would consider cutting off funding for such organizations. Trump himself has repeatedly focused on antifa as a primary culprit in recent unrest, echoing Republican claims that the group was responsible for riots in major cities following the murder of George Floyd in 2020.
The move to label antifa as a domestic terrorist organization is not without controversy. Legal experts have pointed out that antifa is a decentralized ideology lacking a clear leadership structure, raising significant questions about how the order will be implemented and whether it will be used to target a broad swath of left-wing organizations. There is also uncertainty about whether the president has the authority to make such a designation under current U.S. law, a point that is expected to spark legal challenges in the courts. Critics warn that the order could be wielded as a blunt instrument against political opponents, infringing on constitutional rights and muddying the distinction between protest and terrorism.
Public opinion on the issue is sharply divided, with recent polling highlighting deep partisan splits. A survey conducted by Economist/YouGov from September 12 to September 15, 2025, found that 90 percent of Republicans are concerned about left-wing extremism in the United States, compared to 56 percent of independents and 38 percent of Democrats. Overall, 61 percent of Americans said they are either very or somewhat concerned about left-wing extremism, with 40 percent describing themselves as very concerned. By contrast, 69 percent of respondents expressed concern about right-wing extremism, including a striking 88 percent of Democrats but only 34 percent of Republicans. When asked which side is responsible for most political violence, 33 percent pointed to the left, 29 percent to the right, and 24 percent said both sides equally.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has only heightened these tensions. In the days following his death, Americans across the country have held vigils in his memory, and requests to join and start Turning Point USA chapters at high schools and universities have surged. During an emotional address, Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, vowed to carry on her husband’s legacy. “The movement my husband built will not die. It won’t. I refuse to let that happen,” she declared. “No one will ever forget my husband’s name, and I will make sure of it. It will become stronger, bolder, louder, and greater than ever. My husband’s mission will not end. Not even for a moment.”
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the debate over how to address political violence and extremism has taken on new urgency. On the same day as Trump’s executive order, Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland, called for a House investigation into organizations that label mainstream conservative groups as hate groups. Appearing on Newsmax, Harris described a letter sent by the House Freedom Caucus to Speaker Mike Johnson, urging a full probe of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which often classifies conservative or faith-based organizations as extremists. “We have to investigate,” Harris insisted. “This started years ago and, of course, it accelerated during COVID, during the George Floyd riots, where there was overt violence. We know that there was money funneled into those groups.”
Harris specifically cited concerns over funding networks and political figures, including Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2020 support for a bail fund for protesters. He also pointed to liberal financier George Soros, claiming, “George Soros is behind many of them, we know that,” and referencing Soros-backed efforts to elect progressive prosecutors and attorneys general. The House Freedom Caucus is seeking subpoena authority to obtain records and communications “between these violent protesters and the groups that are funding them,” Harris said, arguing that tracing these financial connections is essential to stopping organized efforts to incite unrest.
For its part, the Open Society Foundations, which Soros founded, has firmly rejected any suggestion that it supports or funds violent protests. In a statement last month, the organization said it “does not support or fund violent protests,” emphasizing that its grants focus on advancing democracy, human rights, and justice. Harris, however, maintained that while peaceful protest is a constitutional right, “there can never be an organized method to promote that violence.” He underscored that Congress has a duty to ensure that the right to protest is not abused for violent ends.
Amid all this, Americans are left grappling with difficult questions: Where is the line between passionate protest and criminal conduct? Who gets to decide when activism becomes extremism? And, perhaps most importantly, how can a deeply divided nation address the roots of political violence without trampling on fundamental freedoms?
As the legal and political battles over Trump’s executive order begin to unfold, and as lawmakers weigh new investigations and reforms, the country stands at a crossroads. The coming months will reveal whether these efforts will bring clarity and safety—or only deepen the divisions that have driven so much of the unrest in recent years.
