Trump Administration Hits Roadblocks in Crackdown on Left-Wing Groups, Experts Warn

Trump speaks during a Get Out The Vote campaign rally at Coastal Carolina University on Feb. 10, 2024, in Conway, South Carolina. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Washington, D.C. – September 18, 2025 - President Donald Trump's aggressive push to target left-wing organizations, including designating antifa as a "major terrorist organization," is encountering substantial legal and practical barriers, according to constitutional scholars, civil liberties advocates, and even conservative policy experts. The initiative, framed as a response to the September 10 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, aims to investigate funding networks and potentially revoke tax-exempt statuses of progressive nonprofits. However, specialists warn that U.S. law offers few mechanisms for such broad actions, risking First Amendment challenges and accusations of partisan overreach.

The announcement escalated on September 17 when Trump posted on Truth Social: "I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION." He added that funders of antifa would be "thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices." This echoes a similar but unfulfilled promise from 2020 amid George Floyd protests, where then-FBI Director Christopher Wray described antifa as an "ideology" rather than a structured group, complicating any formal designation.

Legal hurdles loom large. Unlike foreign terrorist organizations, which can be sanctioned under federal law with due process hearings, there is no equivalent framework for domestic groups. "There’s not a lot of federal law on this," said Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, a conservative watchdog tracking progressive nonprofits. "To create a designation process for domestic organizations that would trigger any legal ramifications, you would need Congress to create a statute." Mary McCord, former top national security official at the Justice Department, was blunter: "He can say what he wants, but it has no legal significance." Experts like Luke Baumgartner of George Washington University's Program on Extremism noted that antifa's decentralized nature—lacking leadership, membership lists, or hierarchy—makes it "very hard to see as connected in an organizational form that could be tackled."

Administration officials have outlined broader plans, including probes into groups like George Soros's Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation for allegedly supporting violence. Vice President JD Vance, in a Fox News interview on September 17, blamed "left-wing political radicalization" for Kirk's death and vowed to target the "NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence." Attorney General Pam Bondi has floated racketeering charges under RICO statutes against entities funding "left-wing agitators," while senior adviser Stephen Miller described an "organized campaign" behind the assassination—despite Utah prosecutors charging 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as a lone actor with no ties to organized groups, citing only personal grievances against Kirk's "hatred."

Revoking tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) presents another obstacle. The IRS requires case-by-case audits for violations like excessive political activity or illegal purposes, with full appeals processes; automatic revocations occur only for failure to file returns for three years, not ideological reasons. "There is no lawful mechanism for the president... or the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of multiple nonprofits without following this longstanding process," according to nonprofit law expert Jeff Tenenbaum. Attempts during Trump's first term, including FBI investigations directed by then-Attorney General William Barr, largely stalled amid concerns over right-wing extremism's greater threat—responsible for more U.S. fatalities in recent years than left-wing violence, per federal studies.

Democrats and watchdogs have decried the rhetoric as inflammatory. Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), ranking member on the House Administration Committee, labeled it "irresponsible" and likely to deepen divisions. The ACLU warned that targeting ideologies risks "significant First Amendment concerns," potentially chilling free speech. Progressive group Indivisible, which has faced right-wing threats in 2025, called it an effort to "silence foes." International observers, including BBC Verify, highlighted parallels to authoritarian tactics, where violence pretextually suppresses dissent.

Public reaction has been polarized. On social media, conservative voices like Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) praised the move, saying antifa "seized upon a movement of legitimate grievances to promote violence and anarchy." One user posted: "LETS HOPE TOO THE LEADERS OF BLM & DEI ALL OF THEM MUST GO!" Critics, including constitutional law expert Rumen Cholakov of King's College London, emphasized First Amendment protections for domestic movements. A separate post noted Trump's September 15 statement supporting the designation "100%" amid the Kirk fallout.

With actions potentially slated for later this month, the stakes are immense ahead of 2026 midterms. Success could disrupt progressive organizing, but experts predict court battles that bolster overreach claims. "Political violence is a cancer on democracy—from both sides," said a former Justice Department official anonymously. "But you can't just tar an entire ideology without evidence; that's how you erode trust in institutions." As the White House navigates these constraints, Trump's bold vows may test the boundaries of executive power in America's divided landscape.