Urgent Update: FBI Calls Antifa a ‘Militant Enterprise’ in Indictments

UPDATE: In a startling development, federal prosecutors have classified “antifa” as a “militant enterprise” in a newly announced indictment against two individuals linked to an attack on an ICE facility in Texas. The indictment, unveiled Thursday, charges Zachary Evetts and Cameron Arnold with providing material support to terrorists and multiple counts of attempted murder of federal officers.

The charges stem from a shocking incident on July 4 at the ICE Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The government alleges that Evetts and Arnold were part of an “antifa cell” that opened fire on law enforcement during a protest, leading to serious injuries. This indictment marks a significant escalation in the government’s stance against antifa, which has been defined as a network of groups adhering to a revolutionary anarchist or Marxist ideology.

Former DOJ anti-terrorism lawyer Thomas E. Brzozowski expressed concern over this classification, stating, “The choice of the term ‘enterprise’ suggests a broader investigation into antifa, potentially infringing on civil liberties.” He highlighted that this vague definition could lead to the FBI scrutinizing a wide array of individuals simply based on their political beliefs.

The indictment aligns with language from a recent executive order by former President Donald Trump, labeling antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed this sentiment in a post on social media, asserting that “antifa is a left-wing terrorist organization” and will face prosecution accordingly. FBI Director Kash Patel stated, “Under President Trump’s new authorities we’ve made 20+ arrests. No one gets to harm law enforcement. Not on my watch.”

The indictment details that a third individual, identified as Benjamin Hanil Song, fired upon law enforcement, injuring an officer. Song is separately charged with attempted murder but is not named in the indictment that characterizes antifa as an enterprise. His alleged actions during the protest included instructing others to “get to the rifles,” indicating a premeditated plan to engage in violence.

Evetts’ attorney, Patrick McLain, argues that his client only intended to participate in a peaceful protest and did not fire a weapon. “Mr. Evetts was going to protest and shoot fireworks on the night of the 4th of July,” McLain emphasized, distancing his client from the violent actions attributed to the group.

The charges against Evetts and Arnold are based on a statute that could lead to a prison sentence of up to 15 years. This statute was previously applied to prosecute members of extremist groups. Brzozowski noted the potential implications of this broad classification, raising questions about the administration’s motives in linking individuals to an alleged antifa enterprise based solely on ideology rather than verified actions.

As this story develops, the implications of the indictment raise critical questions about civil liberties, political beliefs, and the government’s approach to domestic terrorism. Critics warn that the vague definitions could lead to a chilling effect on political dissent and protests.

The situation is evolving rapidly, and the national discourse around antifa and domestic terrorism is likely to intensify. Stay tuned for further updates on this pressing issue.