H.Res. 26: Deeming Antifa a Domestic Terrorist Organization – Policy Analysis

On January 9, 2025, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced House Resolution 26 (H.Res. 26), seeking to designate Antifa and its affiliates as a domestic terrorist organization under section 2331 of title 18, United States Code. The resolution points to a series of violent incidents linked to Antifa-affiliated individuals and demonstrations, arguing that such conduct constitutes domestic terrorism. Proponents view the resolution as a step toward combating political violence, while critics raise significant concerns about enforceability, civil liberties, and the potential for government overreach.

This analysis examines the resolution’s provisions, historical context, practical implications, and potential impact on civil rights, law enforcement, and political discourse.

Key Provisions

1. Designation of Domestic Terrorism
   • Deems unlawful conduct by Antifa members or any participants in Antifa-affiliated demonstrations as acts of domestic terrorism under federal law.
   • Formally designates Antifa and any affiliated or subsidiary groups as domestic terrorist organizations.
2. Calls for DOJ Action
   • Urges the Department of Justice to prosecute crimes committed by Antifa as domestic terrorism.
   • Directs DOJ to use all available tools to prevent the spread of what the resolution defines as domestic terrorism linked to Antifa.
3. Documented Incidents of Violence
   • Lists numerous high-profile incidents of property destruction, violence, and intimidation attributed to individuals or groups affiliated with Antifa from 2016 to 2023.
   • Includes examples of attacks on law enforcement, doxing of federal employees, and extensive property damage during protests.

Historical Context and Challenges

1. Decentralized Nature of Antifa
   • As clarified by PBS and Britannica, Antifa is not a structured organization but a loosely connected movement of activists united by anti-fascist ideologies. The lack of formal leadership or membership complicates enforcement and challenges the logic of designating it as a domestic terrorist organization.
2. Domestic Terrorism Framework
   • U.S. domestic terrorism laws typically target structured groups that engage in or support acts of violence, such as militia groups or organized crime syndicates. The resolution’s broad language raises questions about how to prosecute an ideology or informal network under these statutes.
3. Legislative and Judicial Precedent
   • Historically, U.S. policies have avoided designating domestic entities or ideologies as terrorist organizations due to constitutional concerns. This resolution risks setting a dangerous precedent by targeting political movements, potentially chilling dissent and infringing on First Amendment rights.

Broader Policy Implications

H.Res. 26 reflects broader trends in the administration’s focus on law and order, yet it raises concerns about enforceability, overreach, and its potential to undermine democratic principles. Key implications include:

1. Public Safety vs. Civil Liberties
   • While proponents argue the resolution will curb violent demonstrations, its broad scope risks conflating lawful dissent with criminal activity, threatening the rights to free speech and assembly.
   • Critics highlight the potential for abuse, where individuals engaging in peaceful protest could be labeled as terrorists based on tenuous affiliations.
2. Practical Enforcement Challenges
   • The decentralized, leaderless nature of Antifa makes enforcement impractical. Without formal membership or a centralized structure, law enforcement could face difficulties in identifying individuals or entities to prosecute.
3. Partisan Polarization
   • The resolution amplifies political divisions, targeting a movement associated with progressive activism while omitting similar scrutiny of far-right extremist groups, further fueling accusations of selective enforcement.
4. Impact on Political Discourse
   • Criminalizing dissenting ideologies could erode public trust in law enforcement and government institutions, exacerbating tensions between political factions.

Predicted Outcomes

1. Legislative Challenges
   • Probability: 85%
     H.Res. 26 is unlikely to advance beyond the Judiciary Committee due to its partisan nature and lack of bipartisan support. The resolution’s broad language and legal vulnerabilities make it more of a symbolic gesture than a viable policy proposal.
2. Legal and Constitutional Challenges
   • Probability: 80%
     If enacted, civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU are likely to challenge the resolution on grounds of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, arguing that it infringes on free speech and due process rights.
3. Public Sentiment
   • Probability: 90% Polarization
     • Support: Conservative advocacy groups and law enforcement organizations are likely to back the resolution as a necessary step to address political violence.
     • Opposition: Civil rights groups, progressive activists, and some independent voters may view it as a politically motivated attack on dissent.

State and Public Reactions

1. State-Level Resistance
   • Progressive states, such as California and New York, may refuse to implement enforcement mechanisms targeting Antifa-affiliated individuals, citing concerns over civil rights and overreach.
2. Advocacy and Grassroots Mobilization
   • Supporters: Conservative organizations advocating for stronger law and order measures may use the resolution to galvanize their base.
   • Opponents: Activists and legal advocates will likely frame the resolution as an attack on free speech and a precedent for silencing political opposition.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

1. Free Speech Protections
   • The resolution’s broad language risks criminalizing individuals based on ideological affiliation rather than concrete actions, violating First Amendment protections.
2. Due Process Violations
   • The lack of clear definitions for membership and the decentralized nature of Antifa could lead to arbitrary or unjust prosecutions, raising serious due process concerns.
3. Federal Overreach
   • Designating a political movement as a domestic terrorist organization expands federal authority in ways that could be seen as unconstitutional.

Expanded Probability Estimates

Relevant Links

• Congress.gov – H.Res. 26 Resolution Text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hres26/text/ih
• Britannica – Antifa Overview
• Politifact – Antifa Analysis
• PBS – Understanding Antifa

H.Res. 26: Deeming certain conduct of members of Antifa as domestic terrorism and designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

119th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 26

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 2025

Ms. Greene of Georgia (for herself, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, and Mr. Hunt) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Deeming certain conduct of members of Antifa as domestic terrorism and designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

Whereas the extremist organization Antifa is motivated by communism, anarchism, socialism, and violence, and has continuously demonstrated their commitment to lawlessness and criminal behavior;

Whereas, in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security formally classified Antifa activities as “domestic terrorist violence”;

Whereas one chapter, Rose City Antifa, has rejected the civil treatment of perceived enemies, stating, “We can’t just argue against them; we have to prevent them from organizing by any means necessary.”, and this same chapter publicly stated, “We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy.”;

Whereas the far-left militant organization held signs reading, “We are ungovernable” and “Abolish ICE, no cops, prisons, borders, presidents”, illustrating their dedication to lawlessness;

Whereas, in response to the 2017 violent riots, an Antifa extremist stated, “Sometimes you have to use direct action to stop it because protesting, signs, yelling is not going to do anything. You have to make them afraid.”;

Whereas Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray stated in a testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee, “We have seen folks who subscribe or identify with the Antifa movement, who coalesce regionally into small groups or nodes and they are certainly organized at that level”, proving these extreme, violent attacks, disguised under the name of protests, are coordinated, organized events that are orchestrated by Antifa;

Whereas the Congressional Research Service reports that Antifa literature urges followers to publicize information such as home addresses, phone numbers, photographs, and social media profiles of perceived enemies;

Whereas, in June 2018, at least 1,500 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (referred to in this resolution as “ICE”) employees were doxed by an Antifa-linked Twitter account and were subjected to violent threats and harassments;

Whereas, in February 2017, black-bloc, Antifa-affiliated riots resulted in $100,000 worth of damage at the University of California at Berkeley;

Whereas, in February 2017, over 200 rioters were indicted on charges of assaulting police officers, torching a limousine, and smashing windows of several businesses, and other Antifa-affiliated rioters were armed with hammers, crowbars, bricks, rocks, flares, firecrackers, and other explosive devices;

Whereas, in August 2017, approximately 100 Antifa rioters incited violence during a peaceful rally in Berkeley, California, where these terrorists were repeatedly punching and kicking innocent people, sending several peaceful protestors to the hospital, and ultimately 13 rioters were arrested on a range of charges including assault with deadly weapons and obstructing a police officer;

Whereas, in July 2020, a self-proclaimed member of Antifa, Willem Van Spronsen, tossed lit objects at vehicles and buildings, caused a car fire, attempted to ignite a 500-gallon propane tank, and attempted to firebomb the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington;

Whereas, in February 2021, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon stated that Antifa caused more than $2,300,000 in riot damage to Federal property in Oregon, not including any damages to private businesses or State, county, and city buildings;

Whereas, over the summer of 2020, Antifa assisted in inflicting over $2,000,000,000 in damages against churches, Federal buildings, businesses, and other downtown structures across 20 States, resulting in the death of at least 30 individuals as well as 700 injured police officers;

Whereas, over the summer and fall of 2020, Portland District Attorney Mike Schmidt refused to file charges in approximately 70 percent of the approximate 1,000 protest- and riot-related cases brought by police officers;

Whereas, in May 2020, the Department of Justice formally labeled Antifa violence as domestic terrorism in a public statement saying, “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”;

Whereas Black Lives Matter-Antifa rioter Malik Fard Muhammad was sentenced to 10 years in Federal prison for “repeatedly and intentionally jeopardizing the lives of police officers, destroying public property, and encouraging others to commit violence during protests that occurred in Portland in 2020”;

Whereas, in January 2021, Portland Police Bureau officials reported that Antifa rioters attacked officers in downtown Portland shooting commercial-grade, aerial fireworks and firebombs, and destroying government property and over a dozen downtown businesses;

Whereas in that same riot, police were also attacked with bricks, rocks, and frozen water bottles, and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler reported at least tens of thousands of dollars in damage had been done;

Whereas, in August 2022, Antifa ardently defended the sexualization of children by guarding a “kid-friendly” drag show at a North Texas distillery;

Whereas, in January 2023, Atlanta police arrested 6 extremists on charges of domestic terrorism following violent riots carried out by members of Antifa who shattered windows, destroyed businesses, torched a police car, and vandalized the walls of the city;

Whereas, in January 2023, Antifa issued a statement telling its followers to bring pipes, spray paint, kerosene, and lighters to New York City to “Burn it all down”;

Whereas, in March 2023, Antifa-affiliated rioters set fire to the future Atlanta police training facility by launching fireworks, Molotov cocktails, and other destructive items at police officers and into the facility’s construction site resulting in arrests of 23 extremists on charges of domestic terrorism;

Whereas these coordinated, destructive acts of hate carried out by Antifa are attacks against the Nation’s law enforcement as well as the American people and have no place in the United States; and

Whereas members of Antifa are relentlessly dedicated to using acts of domestic terrorism in order to suppress opposing political ideologies: Now, therefore, be it

That, 
(1)

this conduct of Antifa members, or any unlawful conduct performed at an Antifa-affiliated demonstration, is deemed to be domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code);
(2)

the House of Representatives designates Antifa, and any other affiliated group or subsidiary of Antifa, to be a domestic terrorist organization; and
(3)

the House of Representatives calls on the Department of Justice, 
(A)

to prosecute these crimes of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) by Antifa; and
(B)

to use all available tools and resources to combat the spread of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) committed by Antifa.