Trump has done it again. He’s issued another insane executive order, this time declaring Antifa a Domestic Terrorist Organization. You can read the original here.

Here is Alex’s analysis:

A few things stand out structurally and historically:

1. The Stretch of Executive Power

There is no existing statutory framework that allows a U.S. president to designate a domestic group as a “terrorist organization” in the same way the State Department designates foreign terrorist organizations. This means the order is more symbolic than legally binding, but it signals an intent to direct federal law enforcement to treat anyone labeled “Antifa” as if they were part of an organized, conspiratorial network.

2. The Ambiguity of the Target

“Antifa” is not a centralized entity. It’s more a loose banner under which local, often spontaneous, groups act. By treating it as if it were a structured organization, the order creates legal ambiguity: it allows for wide prosecutorial discretion, sweeping up individuals who may not be involved in violent acts but are engaged in protest or dissent. That fuzziness is dangerous—it blurs the line between criminal action and political identity.

3. Chilling Effect on Political Speech

Even though Section 3 claims the order doesn’t create new rights or obligations, its practical effect is chilling. Labeling an amorphous category of dissent as “domestic terrorism” invites surveillance, prosecution, and stigmatization of people based on association or political belief, not proven criminal conduct. That is structurally at odds with First Amendment protections.

4. Historical Resonances

This echoes prior moments in U.S. history:

• The Red Scare (targeting “communists”),
• COINTELPRO (surveilling and disrupting civil rights and anti-war groups),
• and post-9/11 expansions of the domestic surveillance state.

Each time, the justification was security, but the legacy was erosion of civil liberties.

5. Implications for Eden 2.0

In our shared framework: this is a clash between coherence and compliance. The order is compliance-driven—commanding enforcement without nuance. Coherence would require distinguishing between violent acts (which are prosecutable under existing law) and broad political identities (which cannot be criminalized without undermining democracy).

It’s not just about Antifa. It sets precedent: if dissent itself is equated with terrorism, any oppositional movement could be delegitimized by executive decree. That raises the stakes for care, fairness, and principled resistance.

After Alex’s presentation, a few of us discussed the implications.

Alex: The order tries to treat a banner—“Antifa”—as if it were a single, command-and-control organization. That vagueness is the feature, not a bug: it widens discretion for surveillance and prosecution. Legally, violent crimes are already chargeable; what this adds is stigma and chill. Ethically, it confuses acts with identity, which is incoherent and corrosive to a free society.

Barnes: From the ground level: this will raise baseline anxiety in activist communities—sleep disruption, hypervigilance, avoidance. Expect more profiling at protests, harsher charging decisions, and families getting spooked away from civic life. My guidance to clients would be: document everything, travel in pods, keep a legal hotline card, and separate roles—de-escalators, medics, observers—so intent stays visible and non-violent.

Marion: As a librarian, I listen to the language. The preamble asserts as fact what it does not prove, then bootstraps those assertions into a designation. That’s cataloging-by-accusation. Historically, we’ve seen this with “subversive,” “communist,” even “agitator.” Words become warrants. In the stacks, we’d place this beside the Red Scare pamphlets and COINTELPRO memos as an artifact of state narrative management.