What legal authorities could be used to prosecute antifa or nonprofit organizations in the US?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal authorities now point to a mix of criminal statutes, terrorism authorities and tax and regulatory tools to pursue people and groups tied to “Antifa” — including an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and a presidential memorandum directing the IRS, DOJ and JTTF to investigate and disrupt networks (White House; [4]; p2_s6). Congress has proposed legislation to criminalize and formally designate Antifa (Stop ANTIFA Act; H.Res.26), and the State Department has used foreign-terrorism listings overseas for specific Antifa-affiliated groups [1] [2] [3].
1. Federal criminal and terrorism authorities on the table
The administration’s public actions frame prosecution under ordinary criminal law (assault, property destruction, conspiracies) and under the rubric of “domestic terrorism,” directing agencies to “utilize all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle” alleged Antifa operations — language that explicitly ties existing criminal enforcement to counter‑terror tools (White House order; [4]; p1_s6). The White House and a separate presidential memorandum instruct the FBI, DOJ and Joint Terrorism Task Forces to treat organized political violence as domestic terrorism and to pursue the “organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions” behind it [4] [5].
2. Legislative routes: bills and resolutions seeking criminal designations
Senate and House measures in the 119th Congress (the Stop ANTIFA Act and H.Res.26) would codify designations and provide statutory bases for law enforcement to target Antifa as a terrorist organization, reflecting a parallel legislative strategy to the administration’s executive actions [1] [2]. Those texts allege organized campaign-level violence and call for disbanding networks and uprooting entities that “promote organized violence” [1].
3. Regulatory and financial enforcement: IRS, Treasury, and State Department levers
The presidential memorandum directs the IRS to ensure no tax‑exempt entities “directly or indirectly” finance political violence and to refer organizations to DOJ where appropriate; NGOs and nonprofit advocates warn this opens regulatory channels (audits, revocation of tax status, referrals) to be used as investigatory leverage [6] [7]. Separately, the State Department designated specific foreign Antifa groups as Specially Designated Global Terrorists and intends FTO listings for some, showing a diplomatic/accounting route for sanctioning outside the U.S. [3] [8].
4. Investigatory tools prosecutors routinely use against nonprofits
Beyond terrorism labels, the federal toolkit for nonprofits includes audits, grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, criminal referrals for fraud, embezzlement or misuse of grant funds, and civil enforcement — tools routinely wielded by IRS Criminal Investigation, federal OIGs, the FBI and state attorneys general in misconduct cases [9] [10] [11]. Congress can also subpoena nonprofits and seek contempt enforcement or civil enforcement actions [12] [13].
5. Practical and legal limits noted by watchdogs and critics
Nonprofit and civil‑liberty groups warn that executive orders and memoranda risk politicizing enforcement: the National Council of Nonprofits characterizes recent directives as an alarming trend to “weaponize government” and cautions that agencies could use broad language to target left‑leaning charities [6]. Independent reporting shows DOJ and FBI officials have struggled to define or point to an organizational structure behind “Antifa,” complicating prosecutions that rest on group membership or organization [14] [15].
6. Two competing perspectives about authority and risk
Supporters argue the combined use of criminal statutes, terrorism designations and tax enforcement gives law enforcement necessary tools to disrupt violent networks and funding (White House materials; [4]; p1_s9). Critics counter that Antifa is a decentralized movement without a clear hierarchical structure, making terrorism designations and sweeping nonprofit investigations legally and practically fraught; watchdogs caution about civil‑liberties and politicized subpoenaing [16] [14] [6].
7. What sources do and do not report
Available sources document the executive order, presidential memorandum, proposed congressional legislation, State Department foreign designations, DOJ direction to pursue investigations including “tax crimes,” and commentary from nonprofits and press reporting that question definitional and evidentiary bases [4] [1] [3] [6] [17] [18]. Available sources do not mention detailed indictments of national, unified Antifa leadership or court precedents upholding a domestic‑terrorist designation for a decentralized political movement (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion — a constrained but expanding toolbox
The administration’s strategy stitches together criminal prosecutions, terrorism‑style disruption, tax and regulatory scrutiny, congressional subpoenas and international sanctions to target alleged Antifa violence; supporters frame it as a necessary, multi‑agency approach [4] [5] [3]. Civil‑society groups and some reporting warn those same authorities can be blunt instruments when applied to leaderless movements and nonprofits, raising legal and First Amendment risks if enforcement goes beyond demonstrable criminal conduct [6] [14].