[[link removed]]

AUTHORITARIAN STRATEGY: CRIMINALIZING DISSENT AND PROTEST  
[[link removed]]


 

Chaumtoli Huq
October 3, 2025
Huq Ithttps://substack.com/@huqit
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Authoritarian regimes rarely criminalize dissent all at once; they
normalize repression step by step. Authoritarianism is a political
system that suppresses political freedoms and civil rights, using
various levers of control to shift power... _

Photo Courtesy of Michael Nigro. , [link removed] // Huq
It

 

Donald Trump’s recent EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO)
[[link removed]] designating _antifa_ as
a domestic terror organization, issued in the wake of conservative
commentator Charlie Kirk’s murder, is framed as a measure to
denounce political violence. Antifa was singled out even though the
person accused of murdering Kirk demonstrated no support for the
political ideology. In reality, the antifa EO is an authoritarian
[[link removed]] maneuver
aimed at criminalizing political speech, protest, and
organizing. Authoritarianism is a political system
[///Users/chaumtoli.huq/Desktop/Huq%20It/Authoritarianism%20is%20a%20method%20of%20rule%20that%20suppresses%20political%20freedoms%20and%20civil%20rights,%20using%20various%20levers%20of%20control%20to%20shift%20power%20from%20the%20people%20to%20the%20hands%20of%20one%20ruler%20or%20set%20of%20rulers.?utm_source=xxxxxx-general&utm_medium=email] that
suppresses political freedoms and civil rights, using various levers
of control to shift power from the people to the hands of one ruler or
set of rulers. Contrary to common views, authoritarians can be
elected, as was Trump. They consolidate their powers incrementally and
gradually. Sometimes their actions are deliberate and calculated.

This EO should be understood as part of an ongoing move in a broader
authoritarian strategy: to label dissent as “terrorism” and to
silence opposition under the guise of public safety. It is evidenced
by the deployment of National Guards
[[link removed]] against
residents of cities that oppose Trump. The criminalizing of dissent
has already occurred as we observed from the deportation of activists
who support Palestine and against immigrant rights activists fighting
against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Recently, a federal
court judge thankfully saw it for what it was by holding
[[link removed]] that
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco
Rubio violated the First Amendment by targeting pro-Palestinian
students for deportation.

Far from narrowly targeting antifa, the EO explicitly references the
“obstruction” of law enforcement officials, including ICE. The
vagueness is intentional. By invoking antifa, the administration
provides a pretext for criminalizing any community-based resistance to
aggressive policing, deportation raids, or state violence. The goal is
not simply to punish certain acts but to create a chilling effect on
all forms of dissent. This EO, along with other similar
actions—regardless of their legality—must be situated within the
broader context of cementing Trump’s rule and advancing the white
supremacist ideology of white, Christian nationalism embraced by many
of his supporters.

LEGALITY VS. IMPACT: WHY THE ANTIFA EO STILL MATTERS

Some legal commentators dismiss this order as toothless, arguing that
it lacks statutory basis
[[link removed]] since
the U.S. has no legal mechanism for designating domestic groups as
terrorist organizations. While technically correct, such analysis
misses the point. The purpose of this antifa EO is not legality but
intimidation.

It provides rhetorical and regulatory cover for escalating repression,
enabling ICE and federal agencies to justify aggressive enforcement,
surveillance, and infiltration of protest movements. For example,
because antifa is not an organization per se, how would the
administration determine who is a member of the organization? The
administration has indicated that it will review social media and
engage in surveillance of grassroots groups. This means that FBI and
law enforcement will monitor otherwise lawful protest activity.

The antifa EO reshapes the narrative by branding those who oppose
Trump’s policies as “anti-American.” In this way, the antifa EO
functions like a perverse political theater that we are provoked into
playing, rather than a juridical tactic. The EO revives and reaffirms
into our discourse that dissent equals terrorism, even if the
underlying EO is found to be illegal. This narrative schema connecting
dissent and terrorism is intended to shape the public’s view against
political organizing.

Too often, liberal lawyers place faith in the courts—believing that
unconstitutional laws will eventually be overturned. That may indeed
occur. But the damage occurs long before a case reaches the judiciary.
Communities live under the threat of law, enduring harassment,
surveillance, and detention. By the time the courts intervene, the EO
will have already succeeded in silencing voices and deterring
resistance. In some instances, we see that even when the lower
district court issues a favorable ruling, the implementation of that
holding is held in abeyance as it proceeds through the appeal process
to the Supreme Court.
[[link removed]]

THE VAGUENESS OF “ANTIFA” AS A TOOL OF REPRESSION

That antifa is not a legally constituted organization is precisely why
it was chosen. Its ambiguity makes it a useful stand-in for any and
all protest movements. It allows the administration to use this vague,
seemingly dangerous, phrase to encompass a wide range of politics
including even more mainstream liberal democratic ones. The media,
often complicit, reinforces this vagueness by portraying antifa as
a “violent protest culture of far-left activists.”
[[link removed]] This
framing allows the state to conflate property damage or disruptive
protest tactics with terrorism—erasing distinctions between
nonviolent civil disobedience, militant protest, and organized
violence.

In effect, any form of civil disobedience can now be cast as
terrorism. Sit-ins, direct action against deportations, labor
strikes, or even marches that block traffic can be swept under this
expanded definition of criminality. The media’s reduction of antifa
to a caricature of “violent radicals” prepares the ground for this
escalation.

The selective nature of this repression is obvious. If Trump’s EO
were truly about combating political violence, why not designate the
January 6 Capitol insurrectionists—who assaulted law enforcement
officers and stormed the heart of U.S. democracy—as terrorists? The
double standard reveals the real agenda: to punish left-wing
opposition while excusing right-wing authoritarian violence.

AUTHORITARIANISM IN U.S. HISTORY

This tactic is not new. U.S. history is littered with examples of
labeling dissent “un-American.” It is part of a long genealogy of
authoritarian practices within American democracy itself_._ During
the Red Scare and McCarthy era
[[link removed]], accusations of
communist affiliation justified blacklists, firings, deportations, and
imprisonment. The FBI’s COINTELPRO program systematically targeted
civil rights leaders, Black radicals, and antiwar activists. Each of
these campaigns relied on fear, vagueness, and media complicity to
suppress democratic movements. Recognizing this historical
similarity, hundreds of high-profile celebrities
[[link removed]] have
revived the Committee on First Amendment
[[link removed]] that was first
formed during the McCarthy era when Americans were targeted for their
political beliefs.

Trump’s EO is a continuation of this tradition: the use of state
power to criminalize political opposition and insulate authoritarian
policies from resistance.

In the past, what enabled governments to carry out this suppression
was the complicity by silence of everyday folks. Whatever our views on
a particular ideology, as a pluralist democracy we must find common
ground on the principle that political speech should not be punished.
Yet, the fear of boogey man words like antifa, communism, socialism,
are being used to justify suppression of speech.

COMMUNITY DEFENSE IS THE BEST DEFENSE

While legal challenges will inevitably arise, the strongest and most
immediate protection comes from communities themselves. Courts can
sometimes provide relief, but the law is slow, uncertain, and often
bent toward state power. By the time a ruling is issued—or
overturned on appeal—the damage may already have been done.
Communities therefore cannot wait passively for the judiciary to
intervene.

History demonstrates that community defense has consistently offered
the most effective shield against authoritarian repression. Mutual aid
networks ensure that when activists lose jobs, face detention, or
encounter state harassment, they are not left isolated. Safety
planning and rapid response teams enable neighborhoods to mobilize
quickly when ICE raids occur, when protestors are targeted, or when
police escalate violence. We have observed a successful example of
this in Los Angeles. 
[[link removed]]Solidarity
infrastructures—such as legal support hotlines, bail funds,
community kitchens, and sanctuary spaces—transform resistance from
individual risk into collective strength.

In 2016, during Trump’s first presidency, I called on my fellow
lawyers
[[link removed]] to
support community defense efforts. As a labor law advocate, I
understand that it is through collective utilization of the law that
we can deliver some modicum of relief to impacted communities. Moving
away from the individual heroic organization or solo lawyer, we need
to collectivize our legal support and provide what I have termed as
community defense.

We should begin to ready ourselves to both defend communities under
attack, to fight hard for the gains we have won for communities we
care about and to continue to push forward grassroots organizing
communities’ agenda for social justice.

Legal victories are necessary, and legal action must be taken to
challenge unconstitutional policies. But litigation alone cannot
sustain movements under siege. It must be paired with grassroots
strategies that keep people safe, nurture resilience, and reaffirm
the legitimacy of dissent.

Community defense builds power at the local level and signals that
repression will not succeed in silencing opposition. In this way, the
law becomes one tool among many, rather than the sole battleground, in
the struggle against authoritarianism. Whereas authoritarianism
atomizes (isolates people through fear and surveillance), community
defense collectivizes our struggle and makes us feel we are part of a
larger fight for democracy.

DEMOCRACY HAS NO KINGS
[[link removed]]

The irony should not be lost: a self-proclaimed defender of “law and
order” has issued an order condemning anti-fascist politics while
excusing fascist violence. At its core, this antifa EO is undemocratic
and unconstitutional. But even if it never survives legal scrutiny, it
will have served its purpose: to intimidate, divide, and delegitimize
dissent.

The lesson from history is clear. Authoritarianism thrives when
communities allow the state to define who is “dangerous” and who
is “American.” The response must be equally clear: refuse this
narrative, defend dissent, and build resilient movements that cannot
be silenced.

If democracy has no kings, then dissent cannot be treason. To defend
democracy, we must defend dissent.

* antifa
[[link removed]]
* repression
[[link removed]]
* dissent
[[link removed]]
* executive orders
[[link removed]]
* dictatorship
[[link removed]]
* dictators
[[link removed]]
* Kings
[[link removed]]
* No Kings Day
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Trump 2.0
[[link removed]]
* Authoritarianism
[[link removed]]
* authoritarian regimes
[[link removed]]
* ICE
[[link removed]]
* DHS
[[link removed]]
* homeland security
[[link removed]]
* Domestic Terrorism
[[link removed]]
* criminalize political speech
[[link removed]]
* Free Speech
[[link removed]]
* Constitution
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]