Which groups has the Department of Justice formally asked to be designated as domestic terrorist organizations, and what was the outcome?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice has been asked — principally by executive branch direction — to identify and compile lists of groups that may meet the statute’s definition of “domestic terrorism,” but it has not historically had a formal, statutory process to “designate” domestic terrorist organizations in the way the United States designates foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) [1]. The most prominent action on record is the White House's September 2025 declaration labeling “Antifa” a domestic terrorist organization and directing federal agencies to use applicable authorities against it; DOJ was tasked by related presidential memoranda and orders to recommend and submit candidate groups to the White House, while debates continue over what legal force such internal designations carry and what remedies they permit [2] [3] [4].
1. What the requests actually were: DOJ told to compile and recommend groups
Beginning with National Security Presidential Memoranda and subsequent executive actions, the attorney general has been instructed to investigate organized political violence and to “submit a list” of groups or entities that meet the federal statutory definition of domestic terrorism to the President, effectively tasking DOJ with creating a roster of suspect movements or organizations [3]. Independent reporting and memos reviewed by The Los Angeles Times and legal commentators confirm that DOJ leadership directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” with periodic updates and operational guidance built into that directive [4] [5].
2. Which groups have been singled out so far and how those actions were taken
The clearest public instance of a formal label is the White House’s September 22, 2025 executive action that declared “Antifa” a “domestic terrorist organization,” an action the President announced himself rather than a statutory designation issued through DOJ or State Department processes [2]. DOJ’s role, per the White House’s counter‑terrorism memorandum, was to investigate and recommend additional groups that “merit designation” as domestic terrorist organizations, not to make a final binding statutory designation equivalent to an FTO listing [3] [2].
3. Outcomes and legal limits: no FTO‑style statutory power for domestic lists
Unlike foreign terrorist organization listings, there is no long‑established federal statutory framework for labeling domestic groups as terrorist organizations with automatic criminal or asset‑freezing consequences; Congress has been reluctant to create such a mechanism for constitutional and law‑enforcement reasons [1] [6]. Analysts and legal advocates have stressed that an internal “list” or an executive declaration does not carry the same statutory penalties or process attached to FTO or Treasury sanctions, and could raise serious First Amendment and due‑process concerns if used to expand criminal liability or to imitate material‑support regimes that apply only to foreign groups [7] [8] [9].
4. How DOJ and other agencies have framed the problem and next steps
DOJ officials have emphasized focusing on investigations, mapping transnational links, and using existing authorities where applicable — for example assessing whether foreign actors tied to domestic violence can be acted against under existing federal sanctions or FTO authorities — but those assessments are distinct from establishing a novel, statutory domestic‑designation regime [10] [5]. Policy and civil‑liberties groups urge transparency, data disclosure about “DVE‑related” investigations, and caution about a designation process that could chill protected political activity [11] [9].
5. The practical and policy implications of DOJ’s requests and the current status
In practice, DOJ has been asked to compile and recommend targets for an administrative domestic‑terror list and to support enforcement actions; the White House has already declared Antifa a domestic terrorist organization while the legal architecture to treat domestic groups like FTOs remains undeveloped and contested [3] [2] [1]. The result is a hybrid posture: executive direction for DOJ to identify and prioritize threats (and to provide periodic lists), coupled with ongoing debate and legal limits on translating those lists into the sweeping asset freezes and criminal liability that flow from formal foreign‑terrorist designations [4] [8] [7].