Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the Antifa movement define fascism and its enemies?
Executive Summary
Antifa is best understood as a decentralized, ideological current rather than a single organization; its adherents describe themselves as opposing fascism—most often defined as neo‑Nazi, white‑supremacist, and far‑right movements—and they organize through autonomous groups and networks that practice direct action to disrupt those they deem fascist [1] [2]. Reporting from September 19–23, 2025 shows consistent characterization of Antifa as leaderless and diverse, with variation in how strictly participants or observers define "fascism" and who counts as an enemy [3] [4].
1. Why journalists and scholars call Antifa “leaderless” — and why that matters
Contemporary coverage repeatedly emphasizes that Antifa has no central command, national headquarters, or single ideological creed, instead comprising independent activists and local groups who adopt anti‑fascist tactics; this structural decentralization shapes how participants define enemies and select tactics, and it complicates attribution when violence occurs [1] [3]. Reporting from September 19–23, 2025 reinforces that the absence of formal hierarchy means definitions of "fascism" are locally negotiated: some networks focus narrowly on organized neo‑Nazi cells, while others apply the label more broadly to far‑right actors or institutions perceived as enabling racism [3] [4].
2. How Antifa actors describe “fascism” in practice
Across recent accounts, Antifa adherents primarily identify fascism with explicit white‑supremacist, neo‑Nazi, or overtly racist movements, defining their enemies as groups and individuals who promote racial hierarchy, anti‑Semitism, or authoritarianism; that practical definition drives where anti‑fascist groups concentrate resources and street‑level interventions [5] [2]. The September 2025 coverage indicates that while many participants focus on confronting organized hate groups, others use a broader rubric that can include far‑right politicians, militia movements, or institutions seen as enabling authoritarian trends, creating internal and external disputes over scope [1] [4].
3. Tactics: confrontation, disruption, and the debate over violence
Journalistic summaries from September 2025 describe Antifa tactics as ranging from legal protest and counter‑marches to direct physical confrontation and property disruption, with most sources noting the variability among groups and the absence of a single endorsed playbook [3]. The decentralized nature means tactics are locally chosen: some groups prioritize de‑escalation and documentation, while others explicitly embrace street fighting as a deterrent to fascist organizing; this plurality explains divergent portrayals in media and political discourse [1] [2].
4. The evidence and limits in calling Antifa an “organization” or “terrorist” group
Analysts in September 2025 stress that Antifa functions as an ideological label and networked practice rather than an incorporated organization, which undermines claims that there is a single entity to designate as terrorist; this distinction matters legally and politically when governments or commentators seek to criminalize anti‑fascist activity [4] [1]. Coverage notes that anti‑fascist iconography can appear at diverse events without implying a unified chain of command, and that labeling entire protests “Antifa” can obscure mixed coalitions and independent actors present [1] [4].
5. Political narratives and competing agendas about who Antifa’s enemies are
Reporting highlights that opponents of Antifa—ranging from right‑wing commentators to some government actors—often equate the movement with generalized lawlessness, using that portrayal to delegitimize left‑wing protest broadly; proponents counter that Antifa targets organized hate and seeks to protect vulnerable communities from violent extremists [3] [1]. The September 2025 sources show these competing narratives shape public perception: definitions of "fascist" are weaponized by both critics and supporters to expand or narrow the set of legitimate targets [5] [3].
6. What’s consistent across sources — and where disagreements matter
Across AFP, Reuters, regional outlets, and international reporting from September 19–23, 2025, there is consistent agreement that Antifa is decentralized, ideologically anti‑fascist, and focused on confronting neo‑Nazi/white‑supremacist actors, but disagreement persists about the breadth of the label, the acceptability of violent tactics, and the appropriate legal response [1] [3] [5]. These differences matter because they influence policy debates, law enforcement responses, and media framing: a narrow definition limits targets to extremist groups, while a broad definition can encompass mainstream political actors accused of enabling authoritarianism [4] [2].
7. Key takeaways for readers trying to interpret claims about Antifa
Readers should note three verified facts from the September 2025 reporting: Antifa is not a single hierarchical organization, its adherents generally identify fascism with white supremacist and neo‑Nazi movements, and tactics vary widely from nonviolent counter‑protests to confrontational direct action; assertions that treat Antifa as monolithic or uniformly violent are contradicted by the same sources [1] [3]. Understanding those distinctions clarifies news accounts and policy arguments: defining enemies depends on who is speaking, and the decentralized nature ensures continuing disputes over both definition and response [4] [2].