Antifa explained: Trump's terrorist label and the debate around it

The amorphous movement known as Antifa was once again thrust into the global spotlight when US President Donald Trump officially designated it a “major terrorist organisation”.

The move, announced on Thursday, caps off years of Trump’s fire and fury directed against what he calls “radical left anarchists” bent on sowing chaos.

But beyond the headlines, why has Antifa become a lightning rod in America’s culture wars?

FIRST, WHAT IS ANTIFA?

Antifa is short for “anti-fascist”. The term has roots in 20th-century Europe, where militant leftist groups resisted the rise of Mussolini and Hitler.

Antifa is not a singular entity but more a loosely connected movement. It can best be explained a network of activists who share tactics and anti-far-right ideology but operate independently.

There are no formal membership rolls, leaders, or headquarters. FBI Director Christopher Wray once described it as “an ideology, not an organisation”.

That very ambiguity is what raises questions about the legal feasibility of branding Antifa a terrorist “group”.

WHAT ARE ITS GOALS?

At its core, Antifa’s stated goal is to oppose fascism, white supremacy, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. Activists say they are defending vulnerable communities from hate speech and violence.

Mark Bray, a Rutgers University lecturer and author of ‘Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook’, argues that militant anti-fascism is “inherently self-defence” because history shows fascist organising often leads to violence against marginalised groups.

Critics, however, argue that Antifa’s methods — which sometimes include property damage, confrontations with political opponents, and efforts to shut down right-wing speakers — cross the line from protest into coercion, undermining free speech in the name of fighting extremism.

WHO ARE ITS MEMBERS?

There is no fixed roster. In the US, those who identify with Antifa are often young activists clustered in urban centres such as Portland, Oregon, where Rose City Antifa, founded in 2007, is among the most visible collectives, according to the New York Times.

Antifa activists tend to adopt “black bloc” tactics: wearing all black, covering faces with masks, and moving in tight formations to avoid identification by police. Online, they circulate information, “doxx” far-right activists by publishing personal details, and coordinate counter-protests.

But the secrecy and decentralised nature make it difficult to measure Antifa’s true size or reach.

WHEN DID IT BEGIN?

The word “antifa” first appeared in the 1940s as a term to denote opposition to Nazism. In the US, it surged after Trump’s 2016 election. Activists mobilised to counter what they saw as the rising threat of the alt-right and white nationalist movements.

The 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville was the tipping point. The Antifa movement exploded after torch-bearing white supremacists clashed with counter-protesters and a neo-Nazi sympathizer killed a woman by ploughing a car into a crowd in the quiet college town.

Antifa-linked activists were also prominent at the University of California, Berkeley, where protests forced the cancellation of a right-wing writer’s event.

Since then, Antifa’s visibility has waxed and waned, spiking during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, and again during subsequent clashes over policing, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights.

WHY IS TRUMP ON THE WARPATH?

Trump has long used Antifa as shorthand for what he paints as the violent “radical left.”

As nationwide protests after George Floyd’s killing raged in the summer of 2020, Trump, the then President, vowed to designate Antifa as a terrorist organisation.

In 2025, days after conservative influencer and ally Charlie Kirk was shot dead by a 22-year-old who left “anti-fascist messages”, Trump followed through. He termed the movement a “sick, dangerous, radical left disaster”.

Trump frames Antifa as a symbol of lawlessness, arguing its adherents hijack peaceful protests and menace ordinary Americans. He has also suggested that donors and sympathisers should face scrutiny, warning that those “funding Antifa” will be investigated.

Politically, Antifa is a convenient foil. Trump has repeatedly sought to link Democrats, including ex-President Joe Biden, to Antifa.

WHAT DO LIBERALS SAY?

When Trump first proposed labelling Antifa as a terrorist group, Democrats and civil liberties advocates warned that it is both legally dubious and politically dangerous. The US has no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s foreign terrorist designation list, raising constitutional concerns.

They argued that branding a diffuse ideology as terrorism risks chilling legitimate protest and dissent. As New York University historian of fascism Ruth Ben-Ghiat told NYT, authoritarian leaders often conflate left-wing militancy with far-right violence to justify crackdowns.

Some liberals are also sceptical of Trump’s motives, viewing the designation as part of a broader strategy to mobilise conservative voters by spotlighting left-wing extremism while downplaying violence linked to white supremacist groups, which data shows are responsible for more deadly attacks.

Even mainstream Democrats critical of Antifa’s tactics, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have called for violent activists to be prosecuted individually rather than demonising an entire movement.

WHAT DO CONSERVATIVES SAY?

Republicans and right-wing commentators have long viewed Antifa as a dangerous force hidden under the banner of activism. They argue that Antifa has long escaped accountability by hiding behind the ambiguity of being a "movement".

Figures like Charlie Kirk, who headed the conservative activist group Turning Point USA, have amplified the push to treat Antifa as a terrorist threat. On social media, Kirk portrayed Antifa as emblematic of leftist extremism tolerated by Democrats.

Conservatives also highlight high-profile confrontations — from assaults on Trump supporters to smashed storefronts during protests — as evidence that Antifa’s ideology encourages violence. For them, the designation is a corrective to what they see as years of lax enforcement against left-wing militancy.

Still, some in the conservative camp quietly raise questions about enforceability: Can you criminalise support for something without structure or membership? Will courts uphold such a designation?

The debate goes on.

- Ends