[[link removed]]

HOW DESIGNATING ANTIFA AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION COULD
THREATEN CIVIL LIBERTIES  
[[link removed]]


 

Thomas E. Brzozowski
October 27, 2025
Just Security
[[link removed]]


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

_ Once an organization is designated as an Foreign Terrorist
Organization, providing “material support” to it becomes a federal
crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison _

No Kings protesters in New York City Oct. 18,, Stephani
Spindel/VIEWpress

 

Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designations are one of the most
powerful legal instruments in America’s counterterrorism arsenal.
Originally conceived to combat international terrorist networks like
al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS), these designations trigger
sweeping financial sanctions, severe criminal penalties, and extensive
surveillance authorities. President Donald Trump’s comments at a
White House roundtable on “Antifa
[[link removed]]”
earlier this month make it likely that his administration will
designate this decentralized anti-fascist movement as an FTO — a
move that would create an unprecedented expansion of counterterrorism
authorities into the domestic political space.

During the roundtable, Trump was asked directly whether he would
designate Antifa as an FTO. The president’s response was unambiguous
[[link removed]]:
“I think it’s the kind of thing I’d like to do. If you agree, I
agree. Let’s get it done.” This was not casual political rhetoric.
It was a directive from the Commander-in-Chief to his national
security apparatus, witnessed by millions of Americans. It is also
something the first Trump administration took steps toward enacting
near the end of the president’s first term in office. (For example,
see section 2 of the  Executive Order
[[link removed]]
issued on Jan. 5, 2021.) The implications could extend far beyond
anti-fascist activists to the entire architecture of American civil
society and constitutional governance.

THE FTO FRAMEWORK: POWERFUL BY DESIGN

To understand why an Antifa FTO designation would be so consequential,
one must first grasp the extraordinary scope of authorities that such
designations unleash. The FTO system was deliberately constructed to
maximize governmental power against international terrorist threats.
Created by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
[[link removed]], the framework provides
the executive branch with extraordinary authorities that are designed
to dismantle terrorist networks quickly and comprehensively.

Once an organization is designated as an FTO, providing “material
support” to it becomes a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years
in prison, or life if the support results in death. The statutory
definition of “material support
[[link removed]]” is
intentionally expansive and includes providing: “currency or
monetary instruments, financial services, lodging, training, expert
advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation, communications
equipment, facilities, weapons, personnel, and transportation.” Only
medicine and religious materials are explicitly exempted.

The breadth of this definition reflects Congress’s determination to
eliminate all forms of assistance to designated organizations. The
statute applies to U.S. persons regardless of where the prohibited
conduct occurs, creating global reach for American terrorism
prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s decision in _Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project_
[[link removed]] clarified that
even speech intended to promote peaceful conflict resolution may
constitute material support if provided to a designated organization.

Financial consequences activate automatically upon designation. The
U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
[[link removed]]
requires all U.S. financial institutions to freeze assets within ten
business days and report the frozen funds to the government. This
financial disruption is designed to immediately sever designated
organizations from the global financial system, preventing them from
accessing resources needed for operations.

The Holy Land Foundation
[[link removed]] case
demonstrates the scope of these authorities when applied to charitable
organizations. Five charity officials received sentences ranging from
15 to 65 years for providing aid to Palestinian communities that
prosecutors argued were under the influence of Hamas, a designated
FTO. While the defendants maintained they were providing legitimate
humanitarian assistance, the court found
[[link removed]]
that the statutory framework criminalized their support regardless of
the charitable intent.

IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES AND THE SPECTER OF DENATURALIZATION

Beyond criminal prosecution and financial sanctions, FTO designation
triggers severe immigration consequences that could create an
underclass of vulnerable individuals subject to expulsion. Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, any non-citizen who is a member or
representative of a designated FTO is automatically inadmissible
[[link removed]]
to the United States and subject to removal proceedings. The State
Department may immediately revoke visas
[[link removed]] of any foreign
nationals deemed to be members, representatives, or supporters of the
designated organization. This authority extends to individuals who
have “endorsed or espoused terrorist activity” or provided any
form of material support, creating an exceptionally broad basis for
visa revocation and deportation. (That said, similar provisions for
removal of foreign nationals lawfully in the United States are
currently being challenged in court on First Amendment grounds.)

The consequences reach even further for naturalized American citizens.
Federal law permits denaturalization
[[link removed]] of
individuals who were members of or affiliated with a “terrorist
organization” within five years immediately following
naturalization. Once Antifa receives FTO designation, any naturalized
citizen who attended a counter-protest, donated to a legal defense
fund, or expressed support for anti-fascist principles during their
first five years as a citizen could face citizenship revocation
proceedings.

The recent expansion of denaturalization enforcement, with the
Department of Justice
[[link removed]] announcing in
June 2025 that denaturalization cases would become one of its top five
enforcement priorities, creates a particularly acute vulnerability for
many of the estimated 25 million naturalized Americans. Consider a
German immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2023 and maintained
connections with anti-fascist groups in her home country, or a French
national who was naturalized in 2024 after years of participating in
counter-demonstrations against far-right movements in Europe. Both
could face potential citizenship revocation and deportation based on
activities that were entirely legal when undertaken.

The denaturalization standard
[[link removed]]
requires only “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” in
civil proceedings — a lower threshold than criminal conviction —
and carries no statute of limitations. This creates a permanent cloud
of legal jeopardy hanging over millions of naturalized Americans whose
past political associations could be reinterpreted as terrorism
support under an expansive FTO designation.​

CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT

The designation of Antifa as an FTO could also potentially expose
individuals and organizations to devastating civil liability under the
Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333)
[[link removed]]. The ATA authorizes
any U.S. national injured “by reason of an act of international
terrorism” committed by a designated FTO to sue for treble damages,
plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (JASTA)
[[link removed]],
enacted in 2016, expanded this authority to include
aiding-and-abetting liability against “any person who aids and
abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires
with” those who commit acts of international terrorism. This creates
possible exposure not just for alleged Antifa subjects themselves, but
for anyone deemed to have provided material support — including
nonprofits, donors, and service providers.

Unlike criminal cases requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, ATA
civil cases proceed under the lower “preponderance of the
evidence” standard, making them easier to win. Even frivolous ATA
lawsuits could impose crippling litigation costs — defense firms
specializing in terrorism cases charge hundreds of dollars per hour,
and cases routinely take years to resolve. The threat of ATA liability
could force organizations to obtain expensive specialized insurance
(if available at all), conduct exhaustive vetting of all partners and
donors, and potentially abandon any activities that could be remotely
connected to anti-fascist activism. This civil liability mechanism
could thus accomplish through private litigation what criminal
prosecution alone might not achieve: the significant curtailment of
civil society organizations engaged in political opposition to
“anti-fascism,” not through direct government action but through
the specter of catastrophic financial liability.

THE FISA SURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION

An FTO designation would also seamlessly integrate Antifa into
America’s most sophisticated surveillance infrastructure. Under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
[[link removed]]
(FISA), the government may conduct electronic surveillance of
“agents of foreign powers,” including “groups engaged in
international terrorism.” Once Antifa is designated as an FTO,
anyone deemed an “agent” of this “foreign power” becomes
eligible for FISA surveillance — including American citizens (though
with some stricter standards).

This surveillance integration represents a qualitative escalation
beyond traditional criminal investigation. FISA surveillance operates
under different standards than domestic criminal investigations.
Federal agents need only demonstrate probable cause that “the target
of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power”
and that “a significant purpose” is obtaining “foreign
intelligence information.” The standard
[[link removed]]
does not require demonstration that criminal activity is planned or
imminent.

The National Security Agency’s
[[link removed]] (NSA) authorities
under FISA are extensive and largely classified, but publicly
available documentation confirms the agency “relies on Title I of
FISA to conduct electronic surveillance of foreign powers or their
agents, to include members of international terrorist
organizations.” These capabilities extend beyond simple wiretapping
to include comprehensive electronic monitoring, physical searches, and
business records collection.

For American citizens associated with anti-fascist activities, FISA
designation could mean potential subjection to the full spectrum of
intelligence community surveillance capabilities, all conducted in
secret with limited judicial oversight. Unlike criminal
investigations, FISA surveillance does not require notification of
targets, potentially allowing years of monitoring without the
subject’s knowledge.

SOCIAL MEDIA TRANSFORMATION: FROM RESISTANCE TO COMPLIANCE

The surveillance implications extend beyond government agencies to
encompass the private sector platforms where much contemporary
political organization occurs. The impact on digital platforms would
be immediate and comprehensive. Major social media companies —
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram — maintain terms of service
prohibiting content from designated terrorist organizations.
Currently, these platforms often resist government information
requests
[[link removed]]
about political activists based on First Amendment principles. An FTO
designation could eliminate the legal foundation for such resistance.

Facebook’s Community Standards
[[link removed]]
explicitly state that “organizations that are engaged in terrorist
activity are not allowed on the platform.” Once Antifa is designated
as an FTO, any content expressing support for anti-fascist principles,
sharing protest logistics, or providing resources for activists could
become prohibited terrorist content subject to immediate removal.
Users posting such content could also face permanent account
suspension.

The technological infrastructure already exists for comprehensive
content monitoring. Social media companies have developed
sophisticated algorithmic systems to identify terrorist content, with
Twitter
[[link removed]]
reporting suspension of over 1.5 million accounts for
terrorism-related violations between 2015 and 2020, 90 percent
identified through automated systems rather than user reports.

The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism
[[link removed]]
(GIFCT) – comprised of YouTube, Twitter/X, Facebook, and Microsoft,
and other platforms – maintains shared databases of “digital
fingerprints” from known terrorist content. Anti-fascist organizing
materials, protest footage, and political commentary could be added to
these databases, creating automated, cross-platform content removal
and user identification systems.

These changes could extend beyond direct content removal to
comprehensive user profiling. The same machine learning systems
currently used for content recommendation could begin identifying
users based on engagement with anti-fascist content, creating detailed
profiles for potential government intelligence gathering. This
transformation would convert social media platforms from potential
sources of opposition to government overreach into comprehensive
surveillance and enforcement networks.

ORGANIZATIONAL VULNERABILITIES: A HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY

The abstract legal framework above becomes more concrete when applied
to real-world organizational structures. Consider how an FTO
designation could impact the “Alliance for Democratic Resistance”
(ADR), a fictional but realistic progressive non-governmental
organization (NGO), as well as other civil society organizations. ADR
operates from a headquarters in Washington, D.C., with regional
offices in Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, and Austin. The organization
maintains partnerships with civil rights groups in Germany, the U.K.,
and France, and receives grants from European foundations supporting
anti-fascist education programs.

ADR’s activities include organizing counter-protests against white
supremacist demonstrations, providing know-your-rights training for
protesters, maintaining a legal defense fund for arrested activists,
publishing research on far-right movements, and hosting international
conferences on combating extremism. These activities, while entirely
legal under current law, could become potentially criminal once Antifa
is designated as an FTO.

The organization’s international partnerships could be
recharacterized as coordination with foreign terrorist entities. Its
legal defense fund might constitute material support for domestic
terrorists. Research publications could be classified as terrorist
propaganda. Training programs might be deemed terrorist instruction.

Within ten business days of designation, OFAC would require ADR’s
banks to freeze all accounts and report holdings to the Treasury
Department. Staff members would face FBI investigation for potential
material support violations. Donors — from major foundations to
individual contributors — could become targets for financial crimes
prosecution. International partners would be barred from entering the
United States.

Beyond criminal charges and asset freezes, ADR could conceivably face
civil suits from anyone injured during a protest or
counterdemonstration where Antifa was present. A business owner whose
property was damaged, a counter-protester who was injured, or even a
police officer hurt during a demonstration could sue ADR for treble
damages under the ATA, arguing the organization aided and abetted
Antifa’s activities by providing meeting space, legal support, or
protest coordination. The treble damages provision means a $100,000
injury claim could result in a $300,000 judgment, plus potentially
millions in legal fees.

The organization would face immediate operational collapse regardless
of whether criminal charges are ultimately filed. Legal defense costs
alone could reach millions of dollars. Donors would flee to avoid
association with designated “terrorists.” Foundation grants would
be suspended pending investigation. Staff would resign to protect
themselves from legal jeopardy. Office leases would be terminated,
insurance policies cancelled, and nonprofit tax status revoked.

This scenario reflects how FTO designations can destroy organizations
through the process itself, independent of successful criminal
prosecutions. The mere initiation of terrorism-related investigations
creates financial and reputational damage from which most
organizations cannot recover.

CASCADING EFFECTS ACROSS CIVIL SOCIETY

The destruction of directly targeted organizations represents only the
beginning of a possible broader social transformation. The impact
could cascade far beyond directly targeted entities, creating a
comprehensive chilling effect across the entire progressive political
ecosystem. Every progressive nonprofit, civil rights group, and
political organization would face immediate compliance assessments.
Legal counsel would advise clients to avoid any activities potentially
construed as supporting anti-fascist principles. Foundation boards
could vote to suspend grants to organizations with possible
connections to counter-protest activities.

Academic institutions would face particularly complex challenges.
Universities might cancel conferences on combating fascism, restrict
faculty research on anti-fascist movements, and suspend student
organizations engaged in counter-protest activities. The chilling
effect on academic freedom would be profound, as scholars avoid
research topics that might create legal jeopardy.

Media organizations may similarly self-censor. Publishers might refuse
books on anti-fascist history or strategy. Journalists could avoid
reporting on anti-fascist activities to prevent potential material
support liability. Documentary filmmakers might cancel projects
examining anti-fascist movements.

Religious and community organizations engaged in social justice work
would face difficult choices about continuing programs that could be
interpreted as supporting a designated terrorist organization’s
ideology. Labor unions might prohibit solidarity activities with
anti-fascist activists. Nonprofit legal organizations could suspend
representation of activists facing charges.

This phenomenon
[[link removed]],
known to scholars as “anticipatory conformity,” demonstrates how
the mere existence of broad criminal penalties can achieve censorship
objectives without formal enforcement. Organizations and individuals
modify behavior to avoid potential prosecution, effectively
accomplishing the government’s regulatory goals through
self-censorship. The cumulative effect would be the systematic
elimination of civil society infrastructure supporting resistance to
far-right political movements.

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION AND ENFORCEMENT

These domestic effects would be amplified by international
coordination that extends the reach of American FTO authorities
globally. The European response
[[link removed].]
to Trump’s domestic Antifa designation in September reveals the
international dimension of this campaign. Far-right parties across
Europe have demanded similar designations in their own countries. The
Dutch parliament passed a resolution
[[link removed]]
calling for a terrorist designation. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor
Orbán announced
[[link removed]]
parallel measures. A draft resolution reportedly backed
[[link removed]]
by 79 Members of the European Parliament from 20 countries calls for
EU-wide designation.

This international far-right strategic coordination – simultaneously
targeting “Antifa,” an amorphous movement with no clear
organizational hierarchy, across multiple democracies – serves a
common purpose: eliminating organized resistance to far-right
governance by recharacterizing political opposition as terrorism.

An American FTO designation could provide legal foundation for
far-right European prosecutions of American activists traveling
abroad. Under existing mutual legal assistance treaties, European
authorities could request extradition of Americans for
“terrorism-related” activities that constitute protected political
speech in the United States. International asset freezing orders could
create global enforcement networks targeting democratic opposition.

The Hungarian approach illustrates these possibilities. The government
of Viktor Orbán has used its Antifa classification to pursue
terrorism charges
[[link removed]]
against Italian MEP Ilaria Salis for allegedly participating in
counter-demonstrations against far-right groups. This demonstrates how
terrorist designations can transform routine political disagreement
into criminal conspiracy, creating a template that could be applied to
American activists abroad.

The integration of domestic and international enforcement
[[link removed]]
could create a comprehensive global system for monitoring and
prosecuting political opposition, transcending national boundaries and
constitutional protections that have traditionally limited government
surveillance authority.

THE SELF-DEFEATING LOGIC OF COUNTERTERRORISM OVERREACH

The profound irony of designating Antifa as an FTO is that weaponizing
counterterrorism authorities against domestic political movements will
inevitably undermine those very tools when deployed against genuine
international terrorist threats. The FTO framework and material
support statutes have proven remarkably effective in disrupting
al-Qaeda and ISIS networks precisely because courts have afforded them
substantial deference based on their narrow application to FTOs that
pose legitimate national security threats.

Once these authorities are stretched to encompass domestic political
opposition — applied to Americans engaged in constitutionally
protected speech and association — that judicial deference should
evaporate. Federal courts confronting cases where naturalized citizens
face denaturalization for attending protests, or where nonprofits are
prosecuted for providing legal defense funds, will likely be compelled
to impose constitutional limitations that have been unnecessary when
the targets were genuinely foreign terrorist networks. The inevitable
wave of successful constitutional challenges will probably force
courts to narrow material support definitions, impose heightened
intent requirements, and establish First Amendment protections, as
well as other safeguards, that will then apply equally to prosecutions
of actual terrorism support.

Congressional appetite for FISA reauthorization — already strained
by documented FBI abuses
[[link removed]]
in querying Section 702 data on protesters, political donors, and even
members of Congress — will surely further erode when those
authorities are systematically deployed against political opposition
rather than foreign intelligence targets. The House Judiciary
Committee has already advanced legislation
[[link removed]]
to substantially curtail FISA authorities in response to civil
liberties concerns, and adding domestic political targeting to this
record could make reauthorization politically untenable.

The result of pursuing the chimera of “Antifa terrorism” could
lead to the systematic dismantling of the legal infrastructure that
has successfully prevented another September 11th-scale attack,
opening genuine vulnerabilities to al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other
international terrorist organizations that pose real threats to
American security. By misappropriating tools designed to protect
Americans from foreign terrorism to instead target Americans for their
political beliefs, the administration risks achieving the ultimate
counterterrorism failure: strengthening the nation’s real enemies
while weakening the legal framework designed to combat them.

STRATEGIC RESPONSE OPTIONS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY

Despite these formidable challenges, civil society organizations and
democratic institutions retain several avenues for strategically
responding. Understanding these options becomes crucial as the threat
of FTO expansion moves from theoretical to imminent. Congressional
oversight represents a potential avenue for institutional resistance,
though one unlikely to bear immediate fruit given current political
alignments. While the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
technically possess authority over terrorism designations and could
demand detailed justifications for applying FTO frameworks to domestic
political movements, prominent members of Congress have become some of
the loudest advocates
[[link removed]]
for FTO designation.

Congressional appropriators theoretically could restrict funding for
enforcement activities targeting constitutionally protected political
speech, but such efforts would face steep political headwinds. The
more realistic congressional strategy focuses on building a factual
record through minority oversight efforts — hearings, letters, and
reports documenting constitutional concerns — that could support
future legal challenges and lay the groundwork for legislative reform
should political conditions change after subsequent election cycles.
In the immediate term, however, civil society must look beyond
Congress to other institutional mechanisms for resistance.

State and local governments also retain significant authority to
resist federal overreach. State attorneys general possess independent
prosecutorial discretion and could refuse cooperation with federal
investigations targeting protected political activity. Several states
are considering legislation limiting cooperation with federal
political surveillance operations, similar to existing immigration
sanctuary policies.

Legal challenges could focus on multiple constitutional
vulnerabilities. First Amendment protections for political association
create barriers to criminalizing ideological movements. Due Process
violations in the secretive designation process could provide grounds
for challenge. Equal Protection concerns about selective targeting of
left-wing movements while ignoring comparable right-wing threats might
support discrimination claims or claims of arbitrary and capricious
government conduct.

Out of an abundance of caution at least, organizations should
establish robust compliance monitoring and due diligence frameworks to
navigate the evolving regulatory landscape. This includes implementing
comprehensive legal review processes for activities, partnerships, and
funding sources that could face heightened scrutiny under expanded
terrorism authorities. Legal counsel should regularly assess
organizational exposure under material support statutes and maintain
current knowledge of designation criteria and enforcement trends.
Organizations should establish systematic tracking of relevant
legislative and regulatory developments, including congressional
hearings, agency guidance, and judicial decisions that could affect
operational parameters. Financial compliance protocols should include
enhanced due diligence on funding sources, grant recipients, and
international partnerships to ensure alignment with applicable
sanctions regulations. Regular legal audits of programs,
communications, and institutional relationships can help identify
potential vulnerabilities before they become predicates or excuses for
enforcement issues. Organizations should also establish clear
documentation protocols for activities, decision-making processes, and
compliance efforts to demonstrate good faith efforts to operate within
legal boundaries.

Professional associations — bar organizations, academic societies,
and press freedom groups — must take public stands against FTO
expansion into the domestic political space. The American Bar
Association, representing over 400,000 lawyers, could provide crucial
legitimacy to constitutional and other legal challenges while offering
resources for targeted individuals and organizations.

Strategic communications efforts must educate the public about the
implications of applying foreign terrorism authorities to domestic
political movements, though public opinion on constitutional rights
presents a complicated picture. Recent polling shows 53 percent of
Americans believe the First Amendment “goes too far
[[link removed]]
in the rights it guarantees,” while 47 percent support
[[link removed]]
“a strong leader that breaks the rules.” These attitudes create
favorable conditions for executive overreach, making strategic
communications critical to connect abstract FTO designation to
concrete consequences such as: targeting nonprofit donors,
criminalizing protest participation, censoring social media, and
enabling deportation of naturalized citizens for political activities.
These tangible consequences may resonate more powerfully than appeals
to constitutional principles, particularly when framed around personal
vulnerabilities that terrorism authorities would create for millions
of Americans across the political spectrum.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND DEMOCRATIC RESILIENCE

These response strategies operate within a broader context of a
constitutional crisis that transcends any single policy or legal
framework. The potential designation of Antifa as an FTO represents a
fundamental test of American constitutional democracy’s resilience.
To be clear: The U.S. government already has the legal tools necessary
to investigate domestic criminal activity by Antifa adherents. The FTO
framework was designed to combat genuine foreign terrorist threats to
American security. Applying these powerful authorities to domestic
political movements would represent an unprecedented expansion that
threatens core constitutional principles.

The implications extend well beyond anti-fascist activists to any
domestic political movement maintaining international connections.
Environmental groups coordinating with European counterparts, labor
unions participating in international solidarity campaigns, and human
rights organizations working with foreign partners could all
theoretically face similar targeting under expanded FTO authorities.

As White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller
[[link removed]]
has articulated, the administration views opposition to its policies
through a conspiratorial lens. He has characterized the Democratic
Party as “a domestic extremist organization” and claimed the
existence of “a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in
this country.” This stated worldview creates conditions where
routine political opposition could be reframed as terrorism worthy of
the full spectrum of counterterrorism responses.

The systematic weakening of oversight mechanisms — from inspector
general dismissals to civil rights office closures — has created
ideal conditions for expanding terrorism authorities into the domestic
political space. Without effective institutional constraints, the
powerful authorities designed to combat foreign terrorism could be
redirected against American citizens engaging in constitutionally
protected political activity.

The designation would mark a dark turn in American democratic
development. Once the precedent is established that domestic political
movements can be criminalized through foreign terrorism designations,
constraining these authorities becomes exponentially more difficult.
The secrecy surrounding counterterrorism operations, the broad scope
of material support statutes, and the deference courts typically show
to national security claims create conditions where such authorities
tend to expand rather than contract.

The current moment requires extraordinary vigilance from American
civil society. The FTO system represents one of the most powerful
tools in the federal government’s legal arsenal, deliberately
designed to dismantle targeted organizations quickly and
comprehensively. While these authorities have served important
national security purposes when applied to genuine foreign terrorist
threats, their application to domestic political movements would
fundamentally alter the balance between security and liberty that
defines American constitutional democracy.

The only reliable safeguard against such expansion is sustained lawful
opposition from informed citizens, civil society organizations, and
constitutional institutions committed to preserving the framework that
makes democratic opposition possible. The stakes have never been
higher, and the time for preventive action is rapidly diminishing.

_Thomas E. Brzozowski (__LinkedIn_
[[link removed]]_) is the
former Counsel for Domestic Terrorism in the Counterterrorism Section
of the U.S. Department of Justice._

* antifa
[[link removed]]
* federal government
[[link removed]]
* anti-terror
[[link removed]]
* Civil Liberties
[[link removed]]
* MAGA threat
[[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]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

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