Key points:
- American democracy warning lights shift from yellow to red.
- President Trump intends to label “antifa” as a terrorist organization.
- Trump’s actions have sparked fears of a new era of government intimidation.
This past week, the warning lights on American democracy shifted from yellow to red.
A president announced his intention to label a domestic political ideology as “terrorism.” A federal regulator floated the idea of punishing broadcasters for airing a late-night host. A U.S.-funded scholar saw his family abducted and beaten in Afghanistan after an administration office smeared him online.
These aren’t isolated stories. Together, they form a pattern: the systematic use of government power to intimidate critics, punish dissent, and redefine the boundaries of speech.
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump declared that he would designate “antifa” — a loose, decentralized left-wing ideology — as a terrorist organization. He called it “SICK” and “DANGEROUS,” warning that he would push to investigate those who “fund” it.
The problem is as obvious as it is fundamental: The United States has no statutory mechanism for labeling domestic organizations as terrorist groups. That limitation is deliberate. It exists because the First Amendment protects free speech, free association, and free thought, however fringe or unpopular.
Experts have emphasized that “antifa” is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It has no membership rolls, no leadership, and no structure. Rutgers historian Mark Bray compared it to feminism: “There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group.”
Calling an ideology “terrorism” is a move straight out of the authoritarian playbook. It’s not about justice, it’s about fear and control.
If universities, nonprofits, and funders fear being accused of supporting “terrorists” simply because they associate with the political left, then the White House has already won. It doesn’t matter whether courts strike down the designation (and they may well not). The fear itself will cause self-censorship.
This is how McCarthyism worked — and that’s the point.
Civil liberties advocates have warned for years that “terrorism” is a political label easily misused.
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said it plainly: “The president does not have legal authority to designate a domestic group as terrorists for good reason, as any such designation will raise significant First Amendment, due process and equal protection concerns.”
Trump has tried this before.
In 2020, after George Floyd’s murder, he attempted to apply the “domestic terrorist” label to antifa. Even then-FBI Director Christopher Wray pushed back, describing it as a movement or an ideology, not an organization. The courts didn’t allow it then. That he is trying again, this time with a government apparatus more firmly under his thumb, is a measure of how far the Overton window has shifted.
The same day Trump attacked “antifa,” the country watched a different kind of clampdown.
ABC abruptly announced it would suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show “indefinitely.” The timing was no accident. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, had just told a conservative podcaster that the agency might consider “remedies” for local affiliates that continued to air Kimmel’s program.
It was a veiled threat — and everyone knew it. Nexstar, a major affiliate group seeking merger approval, quickly said it would pre-empt the show. Sinclair followed suit. Then ABC cut Kimmel off entirely.
Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times wrote that the president is “conducting the most punishing government crackdown against major American media institutions in modern times, using what seems like every tool at his disposal to eradicate reporting and commentary with which he disagrees.”
Follow the fact pattern: lawsuits against networks, settlements wrung out through legal pressure, mergers held hostage to political whim, broadcast licenses dangled as rewards or punishments.
This isn’t about whether you like Jimmy Kimmel (I personally don’t watch TV and apparently had no idea what he even looked like). It’s about whether the government can decide what jokes you’re allowed to hear.
Trump may think he’s being funny saying Kimmel isn’t — and he might be right — but government pressuring private entities to silence dissent is chilling.
The ugliest chapter came from ProPublica’s investigation into the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — the administrative unit helmed briefly by Elon Musk.
On March 31, DOGE terminated the contract of Mohammad Halimi, a 53-year-old Afghan scholar who had worked for years with the United States Institute of Peace. Hours later, DOGE smeared him online, calling him a “former Taliban member” and suggesting his contract amounted to U.S. funding of terrorists. The post was shared by Musk to millions.
A week later, Taliban intelligence agents in Kabul descended on Halimi’s family. Three relatives were blindfolded, thrown into trucks, and taken to a remote prison. They were repeatedly beaten and interrogated about Halimi and his “work for the United States.”
As Lisa Curtis, a former senior adviser on the National Security Council, put it: “DOGE did not do their homework. They are putting at risk individuals who are helping the United States.”
The chaos didn’t end there.
DOGE leaders went on Fox News, mischaracterized Halimi’s work, and joked, “The Taliban Gets DOGED.” Meanwhile, Halimi’s family endured threats and violence.
Think about that. A U.S. government office used its platform to falsely smear one of its own contractors — and in doing so, handed a death sentence to his loved ones.
This isn’t about ideology anymore — it’s about the complete collapse of restraint.
As Bret Stephens told Frank Bruni in their New York Times dialogue: “Trump is the first president in our history to invert Lincoln: He speaks with malice toward all and charity for none. He makes Nixon look like Churchill.”
When a president treats enemies lists as governing documents, regulators hear the message. When regulators telegraph punishment, corporations fall in line. When agencies treat human lives as props for political narratives, the damage spreads far beyond any Washington feud.
Some will say both sides are guilty. That Democrats pushed social media companies to moderate content, or that universities police speech too tightly. Those are real debates. But they are not equivalent to the government threatening to yank broadcast licenses or mislabeling an ideology as terrorism.
Moreover, both sides are guilty. This didn’t start in 2025 or 2017, it’s been escalating since the 1980s and 1990s and you can argue before. But if you don’t believe things are escalating you have your head in the proverbial sand.
The difference is stark: Private institutions can make bad decisions; the state can strip you of rights. When the state uses that power to punish critics, the constitutional crisis isn’t hypothetical — it’s happening.
The path out of this moment isn’t partisan or even political in the normal sense of the word. It requires anyone who cares about democratic process — conservative, liberal, independent — to say plainly that threats to speech, misuses of terror labels, and reckless endangerment of civilians are not “normal politics.”
Congress should demand transparency whenever regulators link content to licensing. Courts should apply strict scrutiny to retaliatory government actions against speech. Media companies should resist, not enable, political intimidation.
And ordinary citizens should refuse to normalize the idea that silencing critics or smearing opponents is just another way to govern.
This week’s stories show how fragile the guardrails are. A president declared he would criminalize an ideology. A regulator leaned on broadcasters to silence a comic. A government office smeared a scholar so recklessly that his family was dragged to prison.
The common thread is the use of state power to punish dissent. The common consequence is fear — of speaking, of writing, of even living without threat.
We often say, “This is not normal.” But the more urgent sentence is the one we leave unsaid: If we normalize it, we will not like what comes next.
The warning lights are no longer subtle. They’re flashing red. The question is whether we’ll stop the car, or keep driving until the engine seizes.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
It’s hilarious, how can you guys get all riled up about labelling Antifa a terrorist organization when you claim that it doesn’t exist? LMAO
That’s a misreading of the argument
Antifa appears to be purposefully organized as having no organization, apparently to avoid responsibility and the type of action Trump is taking. There’s a reason that they hide behind masks. They are using technology and “planned anonymity” to avoid accountability.
The FCC threat is an entirely different issue, and should not be lumped into the same category.
I see that you didn’t watch Kimmel’s monologue, but chose to write about it anyway. You can see it online – he wasn’t joking. (But if that’s the basis for the FCC action, it’s still concerning.)
Apparently, it’s the use of public airways that allows the FCC to target broadcast networks in this manner, which is why they can’t regulate cable or satellite networks in the same manner.
Someone fired shots into the lobby of the ABC affiliate in Sacramento, yesterday. Probably a “peaceful response” to ABC’s removal of Kimmel.
Except it’s not organized at all…
Well, if it’s not “organized”, then why would you be worried about Trump’s labeling of them as a terrorist organization? After all, it doesn’t even exist – right? (Same point that Keith made.)
In any case, the FCC’s actions are concerning, as is ABC’s caving. (I had no idea that the FCC could even attempt to regulate broadcast networks in this manner.)
It does seem as though organizations (such as universities and businesses across the country) are routinely caving to Trump. Maybe they just hope to ride it out until the end of his presidency, and then “hope” that whomever replaces him doesn’t act the same way. In any case, it’s a rather disgraceful display of a lack of intestinal fortitude (and as usual, is driven by financial concerns).
There is a whole history there. One that comes to mind is Hamid Hayat.
“Except it’s not organized at all…”
In that it doesn’t have a governance structure, nor is “it” any particular membership at any particular time. The “demonstrations” sure are organized. This is why there should be zero tolerance for masks to fight the tactic. Mask=Arrest. Proof of real medical condition, fine. And clue: if everyone at a rally is wearing a mask, something less than 100% of antifa peeps have diminished immune systems, and clue #2 no one has to wrap multiple keffiyehs and cheap sunglasses to completely cover their head for medical reasons.
What a great look for democrats, defending Antifa and criminal immigrants
That’s like saying, a public defender defends criminals when in fact that’s a necessary function in order to protect everyone
The Democrats (e.g., the Biden administration) is responsible for allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants into the country in the first place. Some of whom engage in other criminal activity, as well.
The Democrats are going to continue to lose elections if they continue down that path. They’re also going to lose elections if they “object” to entities like Antifa (or more accurately, the individuals who participate in illegal actions under the umbrella of Antifa) being targeted by law enforcement.
The structure (or lack thereof) of Antifa itself is irrelevant. It’s the individuals who commit crimes – and that’s true in EVERY organization – including gangs.
Do you or Keith believe we ought to repeal the sixth amendment?
No. What does that have to do with any of this?
No one, even Trump – is proposing that. (Except in the case of those he deported to a prison in El Salvador.)
But it seems to me that you generally prefer hampering criminal investigations (e.g., oppose the use of surveillance cameras, etc.). That’s yet another losing issue, for someone like you.
Other losing issues (probably) include cashless bail, restorative justice “in place of” imprisonment, allowing people to camp on public sidewalks, district attorneys who won’t enforce laws, etc.
There was a brief period of time (post George Floyd) where the “defund the police” and “BLM” movements became somewhat popular. That time is behind us, now.
(Next, we have to work on those draconian housing laws.)
So if you believe that the 6th amendment should not be repealed, then someone has to actually be in the position to defend people from government accusations and that can’t happen if they are automatically branded with a Scarlet Letter just because you or Keith doesn’t like the category of people. (See Keith’s comment at 8:30 am for context).
Keith’s comment also suggests that he doesn’t have nearly the level of admiration for the ACLU in the Skokie Illinois case as you do.
I didn’t make the 8:30 a.m. comment.
But yes, I believe that the 6th amendment is important, and that it has nothing to do with “liking” or “disliking” someone.
If disliking someone was the basis for putting them in prison, there’d be quite a few more people in prison. You, me and Keith would probably all be in a gulag somewhere, if that was the criteria (depending upon who is in power).
And yes, I think it was important for the ACLU to defend Nazis.
I do find it very concerning that Trump summarily sent those people to a prison in El Salvador. (This is entirely different than deporting them – which has its own set of challenges.)
But you jumped into my response to Keith, so now you are in it
But more importantly your 9:10 answer goes down the same path, when you argue that “Democrats” are going to lose a lot of elections…. It’s the same thing, there has to be someone to defend people against due process otherwise you de facto remove the 6th Amendment.
My comment was that Democrats (e.g., Biden) was responsible for allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants into the country in the first place, and are sometimes perceived as being “soft” on crime. (Though you’re certainly “left” of most Democrats regarding crime, etc.)
That’s entirely different than convicting innocent people, which is the reason for the 6th amendment.
I’m usually a fan of surveillance cameras (which is how I differ from someone who has views like yours). Cameras can also be used to exonerate those suspected of crimes. (And we already know that they are being appropriately-used to hold the police more accountable.)
The authorities are going to find my actions to be incredibly boring, if they review videos of me.
I don’t accept your premise, but where we are now is at the issue of defending people who are in this country which is a sixth amendment question. Keith’s argument is that it’s a bad look, my counter is that the only thing standing between us and tyranny is the sixth amendment,
Your comment is not specific-enough for me to respond to.
Plus, I don’t believe that Keith supports a repeal of the 6th amendment based on that one comment.
He may have a different view than I do, regarding the commuter line to a prison in El Salvador. To me, one has to be convicted of a crime (other than illegal immigration) to end up there. (And even then, that place looked like “cruel and unusual punishment”.)
I found it horrific to see Kristi Noem parading around in front of those prisoners. (Apparently, I was “supposed to” find it inspiring.) This is where Trump’s vulnerability is – stuff like that, as well as the FCC’s actions, etc.
He may not support (or admit to supporting) such a thing, but he also doesn’t think through the implications of his comments sometimes. Democracy does not survive without the Sixth Amendment and you cannot have a function Sixth Amendment unless someone is defending the “undesirables” otherwise we become Roland Freisler and the People’s Court.
“People’s Court”
In all fairness, Judge Judy probably gets it right about 90% of the time, and it’s pretty amusing watching her yell at people. I recall that one of the advertising clips for that program shows a guy saying, “that’s my story – and I’m sticking to it”. (My guess is that even Judge Judy found that amusing.)
(Yes, that’s a joke – I briefly looked up who you were talking about.)
After learning about it, I wonder why no one ever called the show out for their title, which seems inappropriate
I don’t believe that Keith O knew about the Sixth Amendment when he made it comment. As with too many people with his political outlook, they are ill informed about our nation’s civics. We’ve really lost that as we’ve scaled down education to focus solely on the 3 Rs and standardized test scores. Too many on the left don’t acknowledge the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ protection of private property.
“Trump may think he’s being funny saying Kimmel isn’t — and he might be right —”
He’s right.
“but government pressuring private entities to silence dissent is chilling.”
It is chilling. Everything is decree and presidential order right now, not influencing that worthless body congress to change law. So next president of another party (I pray neither a democrat or a repbulican — please, please God!), they do the same thing back, and conservatives are shut down similarly. Don’t want either. But Kimmel sucks and his comments were beyond stupid. But Trump didn’t need to say or do anything nor FCC, he still would’ve been gone.