Last Wednesday, President Donald Trump convened a roundtable discussion about the apparent problem that is antifa (which stands for anti-fascist).
A description by the White House explains, “Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.”
In September, the administration declared antifa a terrorist organization and so the Wednesday roundtable was meant to show how seriously the White House is taking this apparent terrorist threat.
“They are just as sophisticated as MS-13, as TDA [Tren de Aragua], as ISIS, as Hezbollah, as Hamas, as all of them, they are just as dangerous,” explained Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
That sounds really serious. Just as dangerous as ISIS, the Islamist terrorist organization that controlled as much as 41,000 square miles across multiple countries and beheaded people by the thousands? Just as sophisticated as Hamas, which built hundreds of miles of underground tunnels as part of its preparations for war with Israel?
It’s an interesting way of explaining antifa, which is more of a loosely held together political ideology than anything. For the past couple of decades, it’s been a banner for socialist/anarchist/communist protesters to rally behind to signal they’re definitely not fascists and not boring moderate liberals or something like that.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Then-FBI Director Chris Wray explained this to Congress in 2020. “It’s not a group or an organization,” he said. “It’s a movement or an ideology.”
Have people, under the banner of “antifa,” committed acts of violence? Of course. Activists literally or figuratively flying the antifa flag have long been among the subset of people who go to protests to destroy property and get into violent skirmishes with far-right protestors (like the Proud Boys). Is any of that acceptable? Of course not.
But does this in any way make them “as sophisticated as” or “as dangerous” as ISIS or Hamas?
We can use some common sense here and treat different problems differently.
Meanwhile, contrast the Trump administration’s treatment of Antifa with how Trump handles the aforementioned Proud Boys.
For the uninitiated, the Proud Boys is a far-right organization with considerably more structure than antifa. Proud Boys have engaged in street fights with left-wing activists like people claiming antifa affiliation at protests across the country.
Their activity was so well-known in 2020 that when asked during a debate with Joe Biden to condemn them, Trump refused to do so. “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” responded Trump. “But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing [problem].”
The group’s signature action was probably their role in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, with Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio later convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the attack.
Unlike antifa, the Proud Boys actually did something that disrupted the United States federal government and threatened to derail the peaceful transfer of power. But, Trump pardoned these people because they committed their crimes out of loyalty to him.
This asymmetry between how Trump handles antifa versus the Proud Boys underscores that this is more political theatrics and less than responding to security threats.
This all said, there’s also only so much a limited, non-authoritarian government can do or should do about loosely held together political movements. As explained by Faiza Patel from the Brennan Center for Justice, any attempt by the federal government to crack down on vaguely defined national security threats can have ugly consequences.
“[M]any individuals and organizations will be vilified and harmed for their constitutionally protected activities and others will be muzzled as they fear the consequences of associating with or speaking up for groups that have been targeted,” she writes. “And we will all be less safe as law enforcement resources are diverted from real threats to imagined ones.”
Obviously, people should be held accountable when they commit actual crimes. But by appealing to fears of “terrorism,” the Trump administration is trying to mislead people into thinking antifa is some outsized threat that demands outsized responses.
While the Trump administration’s fixation on antifa might appeal to some overly online X users or people who take Fox News seriously, it’s at best a waste of resources and at worst a threat to civil liberties.
Sal Rodriguez can be reached at salrodriguez@scng.com