President Trump’s executive order designating antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization” was never really about antifa. It was about building a template for repression. Now, with his latest order on “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” the blueprint is clear: free expression, political dissent and municipal autonomy are in the crosshairs.
I’ve argued in the past that the antifa order was legally flimsy and practically unnecessary. Antifa is not a structured organization. It’s more an idea than an entity; a loose coalition of individuals dedicated to countering fascism. And while some have crossed the line from peaceful protesters to violent agitators, violence already has ample legal remedies under state and federal law. The danger of the order is in its symbolism, as the administration begins to stress-test just how far it could go in labeling domestic opponents as enemies of the state.
This new executive order goes much further. Cloaked in the language of protecting Americans from terrorism, it opens the door to weaponizing federal law enforcement against the right’s political rivals. The Justice Department is now directed to treat broad swaths of dissent in Democratic-led cities, from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., to Chicago, as “organized political violence.” In practice, this could mean turning Joint Terrorism Task Forces — entities designed to track designated foreign terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State — inward on Americans, investigating protest organizers, city officials, charities and journalists whose views run counter to the administration’s agenda.
That should alarm every American. The task forces bring the full investigative powers of the FBI, Homeland Security and state and local law enforcement together under one umbrella. Using those tools to surveil political opponents would chill lawful protest and erode civil liberties.
Imagine federal prosecutors wielding “domestic terrorism” charges against activists accused of creating disorder at a rally. The line between protest and terrorism, already blurred by the Trump administration’s policies and disinformation, could vanish entirely. Moreover, the weaponization of the task forces to go after domestic political enemies of the president may result in governors pulling their resources out of the units. This would put Americans more at risk of actual threats — such as those posed by homegrown violent extremists who subscribe to Islamic State or Al Qaeda doctrine.
During these early days of Trump’s second term, we’ve moved beyond rhetoric and social media missives. What was once rhetoric has now hardened into executive action. The effect could be to criminalize opposition under the guise of counterterrorism. Today it’s antifa; tomorrow it may be climate activists, immigrant-rights groups, even political parties.
The risks extend beyond free speech. By equating political opposition with terrorism, the administration is also militarizing America’s domestic landscape. In a speech last month in Quantico, Va., the president told senior military officers he would not hesitate to deploy U.S. armed forces against “the enemy from within.” This was no off-the-cuff remark. It signals a willingness to use troops — trained for foreign battlefields — in American streets to quell political dissent.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, a bedrock safeguard, restricts the military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement. But Trump’s recent rhetoric suggests he sees it as little more than an inconvenience. If such deployments are carried out, it would mark one of the most dramatic expansions of federal military power in modern times, risking both bloodshed in our cities and the further erosion of democratic norms.
Supporters of these orders and maneuvers argue that they’re necessary to fight political violence. But assaulting opponents and law enforcement, rioting, arson, conspiracy — all can be and are prosecuted under existing statutes. What this administration seeks is not more tools but more latitude: the freedom to conflate protest with terrorism, to investigate and interrogate critics under the cover of counterterrorism and to silence dissent through fear.
History offers warnings. Governments that criminalize opposition rarely stop at the margins. In Turkey, the label of “terrorist” has been used to decimate civil society, shutter newspapers and jail academics. In Russia, counterextremism laws have become blunt instruments for crushing democracy. We must be honest: America is inching down that path.
This is not about protecting antifa, a decentralized movement with no formal leadership or structure. It is about protecting the Constitution. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association. If these rights to free expression can be recast as terrorism by executive fiat, then they cease to be rights at all.
The antifa executive order was the test case. The new domestic terrorism order is the escalation. And Trump’s comments at Quantico may be the preview of an even more dangerous militarization to come. If pushback fails now, whether through courts, through Congress or through public protest, the bulwark that exists between national security and political repression may collapse entirely.
We should all be clear-eyed about what is happening. The president is not just fighting crime. He is probing the strength of our democratic institutions, searching for weaknesses. Each order, each speech, each threat against democratic norms is a stress test. The question is not whether Americans will passively endure it — but whether we will stand together to defend the freedoms that define us.
Jason M. Blazakis, a professor of practice at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, was director of the State Department’s Counterterrorism Finance and Designations Office in the Bureau of Counterterrorism from 2008 to 2018.
The post Contributor: Trump’s new order could redefine protests as ‘domestic terrorism’ appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
