On September 22, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new crackdown against what he described as left-wing political violence, declaring his intention to designate the anti-fascist movement known as antifa a domestic terrorist organization. The move, which follows the high-profile assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier in the month, has ignited a fierce national debate over the boundaries of protest, the nature of extremism, and the reach of executive power in American democracy.
Trump, speaking to reporters as he returned to Washington, left little doubt about his administration’s approach. He described antifa as a "sick, dangerous, radical left disaster" and a "militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law … that (executes) a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals." According to Reuters, he vowed to pursue not just the movement’s adherents, but also its sources of funding.
This hardline stance was echoed by Vice President J.D. Vance, who, during an appearance on Charlie Kirk’s podcast, singled out major philanthropic organizations. "We are going to go after the NGO network that foments and facilitates and engages in violence," Vance said, referencing both the Ford Foundation and the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations. The White House, in a statement to TIME, confirmed it was "exploring a wide variety of options to put pen to paper to address left-wing political violence and the network of organizations that fuel and fund it."
Yet, as legal experts and civil rights advocates have been quick to point out, the Trump administration faces a tangle of legal and constitutional obstacles. Antifa, short for "anti-fascist," is not an organized political group in the traditional sense. As the Congressional Research Service reported in 2020, it is a decentralized movement with no clear leadership, command structure, or formal membership. Instead, antifa operates through loosely connected local "affinity groups"—informal clusters of three to eight activists who coordinate tactics and share resources, often via encrypted messaging apps.
These activists are known for their philosophy of "direct action," which can range from street protests to more confrontational tactics such as burning police cars or shattering windows. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, antifa adherents typically dress in black and conceal their faces, both to protect their identities and to present a unified front. Online, they may also engage in doxing—publicly exposing the identities of individuals they view as right-wing extremists.
Despite the movement’s reputation for militancy, U.S. law enforcement has found no evidence linking antifa to any terrorist incidents in the United States. The most infamous episode attributed to the movement occurred in Portland, Oregon, in August 2020, when Michael Reinoehl, a self-identified antifa supporter, shot and killed Aaron Danielson, a member of the far-right group Patriot Prayer. Reinoehl was later killed by law enforcement during an arrest attempt. More recently, a San Diego jury convicted two men of conspiracy to riot stemming from 2021 street protests, with prosecutors labeling them as antifa members.
The murder of Charlie Kirk, however, remains shrouded in uncertainty. The accused gunman, Tyler Robinson, has not cooperated with investigators, and officials have found no public evidence tying him to antifa or any other political network. As reported by multiple outlets, Robinson’s mother described her son as having "started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented." In a text message to his partner, Robinson reportedly said he killed Kirk because he’d "had enough of his hatred."
Critics warn that the administration’s response to Kirk’s killing risks trampling constitutional rights. Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, told the Los Angeles Times, "I am very concerned that these actions are meant to punish disfavored dissent." Many experts stress that the U.S. does not have a domestic terrorism law, and that designating a group like antifa as a terrorist organization could infringe on First Amendment protections for free speech and assembly. As a 2020 congressional report noted, "belonging to an ideological group in and of itself is not a crime in the United States."
Trump’s crackdown has also extended into the realm of media and philanthropy. On September 17, ABC abruptly suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show just hours after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized Kimmel’s comments about Kirk’s shooting. Carr, who has sway over broadcast licenses and mergers, reportedly warned, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Trump himself told reporters, "If stations give me only bad publicity—press—and they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away."
Meanwhile, the administration’s threats to revoke the tax-exempt status of left-leaning non-profits have sent shockwaves through the philanthropic community. Legal experts interviewed by TIME emphasized that the loss of tax-exempt status would be an existential threat to many organizations, crippling their fundraising and forcing them to pay taxes on endowments. Ofer Lion, a Los Angeles-based non-profit tax lawyer, explained, "For many charities, losing their tax-exempt status would be the end of the road." While the IRS can suspend a charity’s tax-exempt status if it supports terrorist activity, investigations are typically focused on how money is used, not on political viewpoints. Charities can challenge such suspensions in court.
The prospect of political interference in IRS investigations has raised historical alarms. Patrick G. Eddington, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, noted, "The IRS has been misused repeatedly for politically motivated audits/reviews from the McCarthy era onwards." He cited the Obama-era scandal over IRS audits of Tea Party groups as a recent example. In response, Congress passed a law in 1998 explicitly prohibiting executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and investigations.
In a show of solidarity and concern, 158 philanthropic organizations—including the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Bush Foundation—published an open letter on September 17. The letter condemned political violence and attacks on their missions, warning, "Attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving undermine our democracy and harm all Americans."
Antifa’s roots stretch back nearly a century to Germany’s Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist Party-affiliated group that resisted Hitler. In the U.S., the first group to adopt the name was Rose City Antifa, founded in Portland in 2007, which declared its goal "to create a world without fascism" and to "ensure that there are consequences for fascists who spread their hate and violence in our city." Mark Bray, a Rutgers University historian and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," likens the movement to feminism: "There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group."
As the nation grapples with the fallout from Kirk’s assassination and the administration’s aggressive response, the debate over extremism, protest, and the limits of government power is more heated than ever. A 2024 federal report, recently removed from the Department of Justice website, found that far-right extremists have killed more Americans than any other group. Yet, as Bruce Hoffman of the Council on Foreign Relations observed, "There’s no agreement on what terrorism is and it’s become completely subjective."
Whether the Trump administration’s crackdown will reshape the landscape of protest and philanthropy—or provoke a new round of legal and political battles—remains to be seen. What’s clear is that the struggle over the meaning of extremism and the boundaries of dissent is far from settled.
