Why Calling “Antifa” Terrorist Threatens Protest Rights

Post Overview

Published September 28, 2025

1. Where I Stand
2. What Antifa Actually Is
3. President Trump’s Order: What It Does (and Doesn’t)
4. Why This Label Is Dangerous
5. Are Most Protests Peaceful?
6. Portland as a Warning
7. BLM, “Antifa,” and the Paid-Protester Myth
8. Closing Thoughts
9. Sources

Where I Stand: Violence vs. Protest

Here’s what bugs me, and I want it up front: I’m against violence at protests. Period. Peaceful protest is a basic democratic right. Do some people lose their cool or feel threatened and lash out? Yes. That still doesn’t excuse it. When someone assaults people or wrecks property, they should be held accountable as an individual. What we can’t do is use those incidents to smear every protester or to shut down the right to protest altogether.

This isn’t a left-versus-right thing. Violence has shown up across the spectrum — Charlottesville in 2017, January 6, 2021, and plenty of smaller flashpoints most people forgot. Be consistent: condemn violence wherever it comes from, and don’t criminalize entire movements for the actions of a few.

Back to top

What Antifa Actually Is

“Antifa” means anti-fascist. It’s not a club with a membership list or a national office. It’s a loose label some people use when they show up against fascism, white supremacy, or far-right extremism. Tactics vary a lot — from community organizing and counter-protests to confrontational actions some folks (including me) reject. Calling it a unified “organization” is a stretch, and that matters once the government starts tossing around words like “terrorist.”

Back to top

President Trump’s Order: What It Does (and Doesn’t)

On September 22, 2025, President Trump signed an order declaring “Antifa” a domestic terrorist organization. That sounds tough. Here’s the practical problem: under current U.S. practice, the federal government doesn’t keep a formal list of domestic terrorist organizations the way it designates foreign groups. Legal analysts point out the order is largely symbolic — and the real danger is how it can be waved around to justify broad crackdowns on dissent, instead of targeting specific crimes by specific people.

Back to top

Why This Label Is Dangerous

• It blurs rights and crimes. Violence and property destruction should be prosecuted. Speech and assembly — yes, even loud, annoying protest — are protected. A fuzzy “terrorist” label collapses those lines.
• It’s vague by design. There’s no membership roll for “antifa,” so “association” can be stretched to include peaceful protesters, legal observers, or journalists doing their jobs.
• It chills participation. People skip lawful protests if they fear surveillance or being tagged as extremists.
• It sets a precedent. If one administration can slap “terrorism” on a broad ideology, the next can point that same tool at environmentalists, labor groups, or faith communities — whoever’s out of favor.

Back to top

Are Most Protests Peaceful?

Short answer: yes. The best big-picture data from 2020 shows the vast majority of Black Lives Matter–related demonstrations were nonviolent — over 93 percent by one nationwide analysis. That doesn’t excuse the violent ones; it tells the truth about the overall picture. The principle is simple: hold people who break the law to account, and stop pretending peaceful protesters are the problem.

Back to top

Portland as a Warning

We’ve already seen how “domestic terrorist” language gets used to escalate. The push to deploy troops to Portland — framed as a response to “antifa” — is exactly the kind of move that inflames, not calms, a situation. Local leaders objected, and legal challenges followed. We’ve been through versions of this before. Heavy-handed tactics tend to produce more clashes, not fewer.

Back to top

BLM, “Antifa,” and the Paid-Protester Myth

People often lump Black Lives Matter and “antifa” together. They’re not the same. BLM has actual organizations and chapters; “antifa” is a label people adopt. In both cases, most protests are peaceful. And the “paid protesters” claim? I don’t buy it. I know people right here at home who show up because they care, not because someone cut them a check.

Back to top

Closing Thoughts

If “antifa” literally means anti-fascist, opposing fascism shouldn’t be controversial. I don’t co-sign every tactic anyone uses under that banner — far from it. But turning a broad, leaderless idea into “terrorism” is a fast way to criminalize dissent. We can do two things at once: condemn violence and protect protest. That’s the line a free country has to hold.

One more thing on perception. I’m not here to slap the label “white supremacist” on Trump. I will say this: when a leader rolls back diversity and equity efforts and keeps flirting with the worst parts of the far right, people are going to see it and draw conclusions. That matters. Trust isn’t built with winks and dog whistles; it’s built with clarity and equal treatment under the law.

Back to top

Sources

• White House: Executive Order designating “Antifa”
• White House: Memorandum on domestic terrorism and organized political violence
• Congressional Research Service: Understanding and Conceptualizing Domestic Terrorism — explains how domestic threats are handled (no formal list of “domestic terror orgs”)
• ACLED: Demonstrations and Political Violence in America (2020) and ACLED: US Crisis Monitor press summary — over 93 percent peaceful
• Reuters: Trump orders troop deployment to Portland and AP: Oregon leaders say 200 Guard troops federally activated
• The Guardian: Oregon sues to block deployment
• DOJ: Oath Keepers sentenced for Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy (example of right-wing protest violence prosecuted)
• TIME: Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally overview (2017 context)