Can Trump really make Antifa a terrorist organization?

Unlike terrorist organizations recognized under U.S. statutes — such as al-Qaeda or ISIS — Antifa has no leadership structure, bank accounts, or membership lists.

US President Donald Trump stated this week that he was declaring the Antifa movement a terrorist organization. The fact that the statement comes just days after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered has highlighted the political undertones of the action. Trump had previously issued the same statement in 2020, but that had gone nowhere. This latest statement raises the same question: what authority, really, does the government have to issue such an instruction, and what would it amount to on the ground, anyway?, The New York Times reported.

Antifa as protest culture, not organization

The essence of the matter resides in a mere definitional problem. Antifa or antifascist is not an organization but a loose networked culture of protest. It consists of radical left activists committed to fighting the far right, often through militant street demonstrations. They call their tactics "direct action," a term that may include nonviolent protest but sometimes extends to the destruction of property, acts of property vandalism, or confrontation with police. While violent tactics have been used by individual members, analysts note that such instances are a small minority among Antifa members.

Lack of organization prohibits declaration

Unlike terrorist organizations recognized under U.S. statutes — such as al-Qaeda or ISIS — Antifa has no leadership structure, bank accounts, or membership lists. It has no headquarters, fundraising sections, or chain of command. Because it is a protest method and not an organization, there is no organization to designate or bar. This institutional vacuum makes it legally and in practice impossible for the government to declare Antifa a terrorist organization in any enforceable way.

Legal hurdles under American law

There are several legal hurdles. American law permits designating foreign entities as terrorist organizations, but there is no similar process available under domestic organizations. Attempting to designate a domestic political subculture as a terrorist organization would almost certainly immediately face constitutional objections. Courts would almost instinctively rule that such an act violates the First Amendment assurances of free speech and protest. Civil liberties organizations have already warned that applying for such a designation would create dangerous precedents for stifling dissent.

Political agenda behind the action

Trump's words regarding Antifa, critics argue, are politics, not policy. In invoking terrorism, the president makes a point of labelling left-wing protesters as extremists, thereby stoking his right-wing base. The backers of the declaration are saying it is a needed response to mob-like protests. Even for President Trump's supporters, there's recognition that the declaration has limited legal weight. The political calculation underlying the move might be less about enforcement and more about messaging during a moment of heightened polarization.

The broader implications for protest and security

The Antifa controversy is a manifestation of a wider conflict in American society over the tension between security and civil liberties. On the one hand are concerns over violence at demonstrations and public order. On the other hand is the risk of demonizing loosely organized activist networks as terrorist conspiracies, which would erode constitutional protections and expand government monitoring. Prior efforts to broaden terrorism law have proved contentious, and observers caution that an effort to label Antifa creates a precedent that, in the future, any protest movement that becomes violent can become labelled a national security threat.

Why this matters beyond Antifa

The significance of Trump's words lies less in their immediate legal impact and more in what they signal about how dissent and protest are handled in the future. If loose political movements lacking a hierarchy are branded as terror groups, it opens the door to sweeping restrictions on a sweeping range of protest activity, from ecological activism to union strikes. For now, commentators emphasize that Antifa remains a protest counterculture, rather than a terror group — and that any effort to address it otherwise would be on shaky legal ground.