Designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization

Overall reaction to the EO

• Many see the designation as baseless “hogwash” and largely symbolic, but with dangerous intent: to legitimize targeting political opponents and create a “shadow enemy” to justify state power and violence.
• A minority argue it’s not incoherent: domestic terrorism and RICO already exist, and the EO simply directs agencies to use all applicable authorities against illegal acts tied to Antifa.

What is Antifa? Organization vs ideology

• Several commenters argue Antifa is not a coherent organization: no central leadership, no membership list, often just a loose label or mindset (“anti‑fascist”) and a right‑wing slur.
• Others point to named groups (e.g., Rose City Antifa) and prior law-enforcement actions as evidence of loosely affiliated, underground cells, analogous to Anonymous.
• Concern: the fuzziness of “Antifa” lets the government decide after the fact who counts as part of a “terrorist organization.”

Definitions of terrorism and double standards

• Debate over what constitutes terrorism:
  • One view: violence (or threats) against civilians for political ends; military action against military targets is distinct.
  • Others say the distinction is blurry; “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
• Some note calls to “overthrow” a government aren’t automatically terrorism unless they involve violence against the public.
• Repeated comparisons to January 6: critics highlight the contrast between treating Antifa rhetoric as “terrorism” while Jan 6 was framed as “legitimate political discourse” or effectively pardoned.

Legal, constitutional, and speech concerns

• Key worry: there is no statutory category of “domestic terrorist organization,” so the EO is seen as inventing a label that can be stretched to criminalize protest and chill protected speech.
• Fears that any protest, anti‑fascist sentiment, or support for certain groups could be construed as “material support” for terrorism.
• Some commenters anticipate expanded use of lethal force and detention justified by the terrorist label.

Fascism, labeling, and polarization

• Several argue that attacking “anti‑fascists” amounts to tacitly supporting fascism; others caution against overusing “fascist” as an ad hominem.
• One side insists Trump and his project are objectively fascist and that the EO is a classic fascist move: criminalizing opposition ideology.
• Others say branding people as fascists or communists is itself unproductive and shuts down engagement.

Comparisons to other countries and history

• Multiple parallels drawn to:
  • McCarthyism and ideological purges.
  • Russia’s bans on LGBT and even fictitious “Satanist” movements.
  • Putin’s playbook of inflating internal enemies to justify authoritarian control.
• Some express shock at the US “banning anti‑fascism,” with suggestions the country is drifting toward Russian‑style managed democracy.

What can or should be done

• Suggestions range from “vote for Democrats” to pessimism that elections may be manipulated or suppressed.
• Some argue protest and resistance are necessary; others see the EO as largely performative and not actionable.
• A few non‑citizens and immigrants openly consider leaving the US, citing fear of arbitrary state power and deportation.