Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order (EO) 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 maneuver aimed at criminalizing political speech, protest, and organizing. Authoritarianism is a political system 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 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 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 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.
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.” 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, 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 have revived the Committee on First Amendment 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. 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 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
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.
