“For the first time ever,” FBI Director Kash Patel announced on Oct. 16, “the FBI has arrested anarchist violent extremists and charged these Antifa-aligned individuals with material support to terrorism.”
Is this a big deal?
No and yes. The arrests were months-old, the new terrorism charge is based on no new facts, and the description “Antifa-aligned” is mere branding. But the indictment may augur worse to come in the administration’s efforts to pursue its ideological enemies.
…
There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
NPSM-7
…
Of course, an indictment need not specify everything that prosecutors know, and it’s possible that they have identified some links between the defendants and a broader left-wing movement. But the notion of Antifa as an “enterprise” does not comport with experts’ understanding of the movement.
The new terrorism charge seems equally stapled-on. It relies on no new facts. To the extent the defendants are guilty of aiding and abetting the attempted murder of a federal official per 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 2, they are a fortiori guilty of 2339A, whose scope includes anyone who “provides material support or resources … knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of … 1114[.]” The 2339A charge here is redundant—and possibly inspired by the inclusion of 2339A in NSPM-7. But it gives the administration a nice headline.
This smells like political theater. The arrests and core facts were already public, and tacking on a 2339A terrorism charge mostly buys a flashy headline. Legally it looks redundant with the existing attempted murder and weapons counts, but it lets officials brand a messy local attack as part of a bigger “Antifa” enterprise, which is more propaganda than careful lawyering.
That matters because stretching terrorism laws to cover loosely organized political protest risks chilling dissent and giving prosecutors enormous discretion to go after ideological enemies. Yes, if people shot at federal officers they should be prosecuted hard. But treating decentralized movements as “enterprises” and piling on terrorism labels with minimal new evidence is dangerous and slippery.
Keep an eye on this. Demand transparency, actual evidence in court, and push back if DOJ starts using terror statutes for political messaging rather than genuine, systemic threats. Nice PR for whoever leaked the line, awful precedent for civil liberties.
That depends on material facts and surrounding circumstances, at the least.