Liberals dismiss antifa as just an idea —
instead of acting to defend the activists, researchers, and organizers
facing persecution.
Matthew Whitley
/
The Intercept
10/2/2025
Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order claiming to designate antifa as a “domestic terror organization.” On Thursday, he issued a directive for
his government to pursue antifa.
Talk spread of another, imminent order
on dismantling left-wing groups. It was the culmination of years of
obsessing over antifa.
As someone publicly associated with anti-fascist organizing, the
proclamations weren’t the greatest shock. The repression is to be
expected.
The reaction to Trump’s nakedly illegal designation from
progressives, liberal media, and left-leaning think tanks, however, has
given me a sense of dread.
That’s because opponents of MAGA have embraced a dangerous narrative:
The antifa designation is moot because there is, simply, nothing to
designate. “Antifa,” in this telling, will simply be used as a catchall
to repress anyone opposed to Trump when, in truth, it’s just an idea
with no concrete grounding in the world.
Trump will indeed label just about all his opponents “antifa,” but
the terms “antifa” and “anti-fascist” aren’t hollow references to mere
ideas.
Contrary to Republicans’ portrayals, there is no overarching antifa
organization or official network. The terms “antifa” and “anti-fascist,”
though, do reflect an actually existing world of activists,
researchers, thinkers, and organizers at real risk of persecution and
dedicated to a specific politics.
If left-wing organizing is to be defended against Trump’s repression, denying their existence will only do further harm.
What Liberals Get Wrong
Anti-fascism was one of the most unifying and electrifying banners to
organize under during Trump’s first administration. We may already be
losing that framework, as Trump certainly hopes, to a deliberately
nebulous sense of criminality associated with its language and symbols.
Instead of recognizing this, corporate media, mainstream commentators, and liberal voices have largely dismissed antifa
Consider how Luke Baumgartner, a research fellow in the program on
extremism at George Washington University, responded while discussing
antifa in a television interview on the heels of the latest designation.
Asked if there was anything real for Trump to target, Baumgartner
said, “There is no hierarchical organizational structure. It is
primarily a movement and an ideology. And there are no leaders. There
are no assets. There are no bank accounts or revenue streams to go after
either.”
The mainstream fact-checking site PolitiFact responded to the latest designation
by citing past remarks from Michael German, a fellow from the Brennan
Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program.
Comparing antifa’s designation to that of foreign terror groups, German said,
“Antifa isn’t organized in that fashion in the first place, as it has
no leaders, assets, or infrastructure, so banning material support to
foreign anti-fascist groups would have little legitimate anti-terrorism
effect here or abroad.”
This take — which is pervasive in mainstream and liberal circles —
gets right that anti-fascist movements do not operate according to a
centralized hierarchy. It is wrong, however, to dismiss the ways in
which Antifa is grounded firmly in reality.
You can take it from me: I have organized and raised funds for the real-world structures that make up the anti-fascist movement.
Antifa in the Real World
Dismissing antifa runs the risk of leaving the people in the movement to the wolves.
A casual observer of mainstream, liberal, or Democratic Party talking
points might be left with the impression that a “real,” organized,
large, coordinated, and uncompromising anti-fascist movement may in fact
be worthy of being treated as a terrorist organization.
At the very least, they might think that such a movement — which is
precisely what we need right now — doesn’t need a robust defense. Why,
after all, would you need to protect something that doesn’t exist?
The truth is that antifa and anti-fascist groups have been
responsible for some of the most prescient and impactful organizing
countering the far-right during the last decade.
Until the recent empowerment of an unleashed Trump administration and
the support of wealthy business interests, the far right was
languishing. Many notorious far-right groups and personalities were
bankrupt, unemployable, facing prosecution, unable to attract audiences,
plagued by infighting, harassed in public, under a constant microscope,
and generally rendered weak and inert.
It was the work of dedicated and organized anti-fascists that made
this possible. And that work was, I might hasten to add, perfectly
legal.
Groups that have considered themselves antifa or anti-fascist run the
gamut of organizational possibilities. They are formally and informally
constituted, with and without membership, and range from publicly
facing to completely anonymous. Their activities include the publication
of research on the far right, producing cultural events, staging self-defense trainings, organizing de-platforming campaigns, and mounting counter-demonstrations.
As for assets, George Soros and liberal financiers certainly do not
fund these activities. Activists themselves usually do. All groups need
some money and assets to carry out the most basic work, even if the sums
are paltry. I myself have fundraised for the basic infrastructure
needed to do things like host meetings, run online platforms, call
demonstrations, and produce educational materials.
A Better Approach
Instead of demeaning antifa by focusing on questions of organization
or the technical feasibility of a domestic designation, liberals should
rally around it — by putting the very values they espouse into action.
You don’t need to consider yourself antifa to believe in defending protected political speech or the right of free association.
If they want to foster a functional opposition, liberals must say
what they already know, despite their discomfort, and fight for these
constitutional guarantees — even for protected speech that advocates for
self-defense and discusses the politics of violence.
Anti-fascists tend to be more concerned with questions of morality
than questions of legality, but liberals concerned about the rule of law
ought to take succor in past precedents.
Direct action-focused groups in American history that moved to
protect their communities, like the Black Panthers or militant labor
unions, have shown that it cannot be made illegal to advocate for or
practice community self-defense, whether that means learning to use
arms, conducting boycotts and demonstrations, or feeding and educating
your constituencies.
Considering the current administration’s open assault on “hostile” communities and “blue” states and cities,
and the inability of courts and lawmakers to restrain its weaponization
of the legal system, military, and law enforcement, that direct action
example is more important than ever.
In the absence of fascist adversaries that are as concerned with free
speech, the rule of law, or polite disagreement as their opponents are,
a politics of mutual aid and community self-defense remains our most
powerful choice.
Anti-fascism and anti-fascists have demonstrated how we might walk
this path toward a politics of empowerment, in which we take direct
responsibility for our own communities.
If we are going to foster a thriving, powerful movement equal to this
dangerous moment, we must not surrender “antifa” to Trump’s whims and
the worst fantasies of our opponents. The health and safety of our
friends, family, and society may depend on it.
