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.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: What is Joe Biden's stance on antifa and its role in US protests?

Checked on October 17, 2025

Executive Summary

President Joe Biden has not issued an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization; recent 2025 documents labeling antifa in that way are products of the Trump White House and reflect a shift in federal focus under President Donald Trump rather than Biden’s policy. Biden’s administration earlier emphasized a broader domestic terrorism strategy centered on violent far‑right extremism and law-enforcement partnerships, while the 2025 Trump actions explicitly target antifa and related political violence [1] [2].

1. Why the “antifa” label in 2025 belongs to Trump, not Biden — and why that matters

The executive order and related fact sheets circulating in September 2025 designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and are issued by President Donald J. Trump, not President Biden; these documents direct federal agencies to investigate and disrupt networks alleged to commit political violence and to prioritize those investigations under a restored law-and-order framing [1]. This distinction matters because agency priorities, investigative focus, and legal strategies change with administrations; a Trump designation signals a shift away from the Biden-era emphasis on far-right threats and toward targeting left-wing protest networks [2] [3].

2. What Biden’s approach to domestic political violence actually emphasized

Throughout his presidency, Biden’s administration publicly prioritized countering violent far-right extremism, developing interagency strategies and partnerships to address domestic terrorism while attempting to balance civil liberties concerns, especially around First Amendment protections for protest and dissent [2]. Biden’s policy language and strategy documents focused on preventing ideologically motivated violence rather than branding broad political movements as terrorist organizations, reflecting legal limitations and DOJ caution about domestic terrorism designations absent a specific federal statute explicitly authorizing such labels [2].

3. Legal and constitutional complications the Trump designation raises that Biden avoided

Experts warned that designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization raises constitutional and statutory problems because U.S. law lacks a straightforward mechanism to unilaterally label a diffuse political movement as a terrorist organization without affecting protected speech and assembly [4] [3]. Biden-era caution stemmed from these concerns: labeling entire protest networks risks chilling First Amendment activity, complicating prosecutions, and stretching the federal criminal code in ways courts may not uphold, a line of reasoning absent from the Trump executive order’s political messaging [4].

4. How fact patterns and priorities diverge between administrations

The Biden administration’s counterterrorism posture emphasized intelligence, community interventions, and targeted law enforcement against identifiable extremist actors, especially on the far right, whereas the 2025 Trump documents frame political violence as emanating from groups like antifa and call for more aggressive disruption and investigative action [2] [1]. This divergence reflects differing threat narratives and political priorities: one prioritizes far-right networks as the principal domestic terror threat, the other reframes left-wing protest activity as a national security problem warranting broad federal countermeasures [1].

5. What the available sources say—and what they omit about Biden’s personal stance

The provided documents and analyses repeatedly note that the 2025 executive order and related Trump fact sheets are not attributable to Biden and therefore do not reflect his personal policy on antifa; they also point out that Biden’s policies focused elsewhere and were more measured legally [1] [3]. What is often omitted in these summaries is a detailed public statement from Biden explicitly addressing antifa as an organizational threat; instead, Biden’s record is characterized by an emphasis on violent actors rather than wholesale political movements [2].

6. Political context, possible agendas, and the importance of multiple sources

The Trump designation serves political purposes: it reframes protest dynamics, appeals to a law-and-order constituency, and shifts blame for unrest onto left‑wing activists, while Biden’s approach reflected legal caution and focus on far-right threats, aligning with civil liberties advocates’ concerns [4] [3]. Readers should treat both administrations’ framing as politically motivated and consult multiple sources—legal analyses, DOJ memos, and independent reporting—because single official statements will not capture enforcement practices, court challenges, or the real-world effects on protest activity and civil liberties [2].

Conclusion: The factual record in the supplied sources shows the antifa domestic-terror designation in September 2025 is a Trump action, not Biden policy, and Biden’s prior approach centered on countering far-right violence while avoiding broad terrorist labels that could conflict with constitutional protections [1] [2] [3].

Want to dive deeper?
How has Joe Biden addressed antifa violence in his speeches?
What is the official stance of the Biden administration on antifa?
Have there been any instances of antifa involvement in protests during Joe Biden's presidency?
How does Joe Biden's stance on antifa compare to that of his predecessors?
What role does the FBI play in monitoring and responding to antifa activities?