Re: On “designating Antifa” and claims about foreign-funded political violence
Thanks for writing. I have three concerns with your message: (1) it treats “Antifa” as a unitary group with command-and-control; (2) it asserts a domestic “terrorist organization” designation solves a legal problem it does not; and (3) it claims foreign financing of “Antifa” without evidence.
1) “Antifa” is not a singular organization
-
The FBI Director told Congress that “antifa is an ideology, not an organization.” That’s sworn testimony from Director Christopher Wray. AP News
-
Independent explainers (drawing on CRS and ADL) describe antifa as a decentralized movement with no formal leadership or hierarchy — loose networks and individuals, not a chartered group you can “list” like al-Qaeda. Reuters
When we pretend an amorphous tendency is a single, tightly run group, we invite both over-broad policing and sloppy intelligence work.
2) “Domestic terrorist organization” designations are not how U.S. law works
-
The State Department can designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under the Immigration and Nationality Act. There is no parallel legal list for purely domestic groups. That’s why for years, experts across the spectrum explained the U.S. cannot simply “designate” a domestic movement. State Department
-
I recognize that, on Sept. 22, 2025, the White House announced an order purporting to designate “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. But national-security law groups have already flagged that move as legally questionable, precisely because “Antifa” lacks organizational contours and U.S. law doesn’t provide a domestic-listing framework. Courts will ultimately decide the order’s effect. Reuters
If the goal is to prosecute violent crimes, existing federal and state statutes (weapons, conspiracy, arson, assault on federal officers, etc.) already provide ample authority — without bending designation law built for foreign groups.
3) “Foreign financiers” and organized funding claims require evidence — none has been shown
-
Repeated government briefings and reporting over the last several years have not substantiated claims that a centrally run “Antifa” receives foreign funding. Reuters’ backgrounders and FBI testimony stress the movement’s leaderless nature, which makes the “foreign financier” frame implausible without new, public evidence. Reuters
-
If there is credible, declassified evidence of foreign state financing of specific violent plots, it should be presented — not asserted. Absent that, claims of “foreign promotion of political violence” should focus on actual foreign actors (e.g., documented malign influence and election-interference efforts) rather than a domestic label. See ODNI/DHS/DOJ assessments on foreign interference: real, but distinct from your Antifa claim. intel.gov
4) Political violence isn’t owned by one ideology
-
High-quality datasets (CSIS) show the domestic terror landscape has varied over time and across motives; right-wing, left-wing, and jihadist-inspired actors have all committed violence. The consistent point is plurality, not monopoly by “antifa.” CSIS
-
During the 2020 protest wave, ACLED found the vast majority of demonstrations were peaceful; violent events were the exception — which argues for precise, offender-based prosecutions rather than movement-wide labeling. ACLED
5) Constructive next steps
-
Focus on chargeable conduct (assaults, weapons, arson, conspiracy) rather than a label so vague it sweeps in lawful dissent. That keeps prosecutions tight and constitutional. (See the legal critiques of the September 2025 order.) Brennan Center for Justice
-
If your office has specific intelligence indicating foreign state financing of identifiable U.S. violent plots, please release the unclassified basis or brief constituents with as much detail as possible. Otherwise, let’s not conflate online rumor with evidence. Reuters
I support vigorous prosecution of violence whoever commits it — left, right, or apolitical — and equally vigorous protection of peaceful speech and assembly. That approach is truer to the rule of law than trying to turn a diffuse ideology into a foreign terrorist organization.
