• Trump's executive order designates Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
• The order follows the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
• Legal experts question the authority and implications of this designation.
• Antifa is described as a decentralized movement without a formal structure.
• Critics warn this move could undermine civil liberties and free speech.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on September 22, 2025, labeling the antifa movement as a "domestic terrorist organization." This order comes in the wake of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, with the administration suggesting that the violence associated with antifa justifies such a designation, although investigations have yet to establish a direct link between Kirk's murder and any left-wing groups, according to Le Monde, India Times, and TRT.

The order characterizes antifa as "a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government" and claims the movement has utilized violence and terrorism to suppress lawful political activity. Trump asserted the need for aggressive investigatory and prosecutorial actions against antifa's financial backers, as stated in his order and supported by various sources, including SCMP and Reuters.

Despite the robust language of the executive order, legal experts highlight that there is no existing legal framework in the U.S. for classifying domestic groups as terrorist organizations. Critics of Trump's decision emphasize that such actions may infringe on First Amendment rights, particularly regarding freedom of speech and assembly. According to statements from various legal analysts, including insights shared from a former FBI director, antifa is predominantly described as an ideology rather than a structured organization, as pointed out by Los Angeles Times and India Times.

The White House has urged federal agencies to investigate any illegal operations linked to antifa and its affiliates, asserting a need for action against what they perceive as a network responsible for violent political confrontations. However, critics, including civil liberties advocates, caution that this designation could serve as a guise for targeting political dissent and quelling free speech, a sentiment echoed across various news outlets,CBS News, and India Times.