Why The Trump Administration’s Comparison Of Antifa To Hamas, ISIS, And MS-13 Makes No Sense

When Homeland Security SecretaryKristi Noem compared antifato the transnational criminal group MS-13, Hamas and the Islamic State group in October 2025, she equated anonhierarchical, loosely organized movementof antifascist activists with some of the world's most violent and organized militant groups.

Antifa is just as dangerous," she said.

It's a sweeping claim that ignores crucial distinctions in ideology, organization and scope. Comparing these groups is like comparing apples and bricks: They may both be organizations, but that's where the resemblance stops.

Noem's statement echoed the logic of aSeptember 2025 Trump administration executive orderthat designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization." The order directs all relevant federal agencies to investigate and dismantle any operations, including the funding sources, linked to antifa.

But there is no credible evidence fromthe FBIor theDepartment of Homeland Securitythat supports such a comparison.Independent terrorism expertsdon't see the similarities either.

Data showsthat the movement can be confrontational and occasionally violent. But antifa isneither a terrorist networknor a major source of organized lethal violence.

Antifa, as understood by scholars and law enforcement, isnot an organization in any formal sense. It lacks membership rolls and leadership hierarchies. It doesn't have centralized funding.

Asa scholar of social movements, I know that antifa isa decentralized movement animated by opposition to fascismand far-right extremism. It's an assortment of small groups that mobilize around specific protests or local issues. And its tactics range from peaceful counterdemonstrations to mutual aid projects.

For example, in Portland, Oregon, local antifa activistsorganized counterdemonstrations against far-right ralliesin 2019.

Antifa groupsactive in Houston during Hurricane Harvey in 2017coordinated food, supplies andrescue support for affected residents.

No evidence of terrorism

The FBI and DHS have classified certain anarchist or anti-fascist groups under the broad category of domestic violent extremists." But neither agencynor the State Departmenthas ever previously designated antifa as a terrorist organization.

The data on political violence reinforces this point.

A 2022 report by the Counter Extremism Project found that theoverwhelming majority of deadly domestic terrorist incidentsin the United States in recent years were linked to right-wing extremists. These groups include white supremacists and anti-government militias that promote racist or authoritarian ideologies. They reject democratic authority and often seek toprovoke social chaos or civil conflictto achieve their goals.

Left-wing or anarchist-affiliated violence, including acts attributed to antifa-aligned people, accounts for only a small fraction of domestic extremist incidents and almost none of the fatalities. Similarly, in 2021, theGeorge Washington University Program on Extremism foundthat anarchist or anti-fascist attacks are typically localized, spontaneous and lacking coordination.

By contrast, the organizations Noem invoked -Hamas, theIslamic Stategroup andMS-13- share structural and operational characteristics that antifa lacks.

They operate across borders and are hierarchically organized. They are alsocapable of sustained military or paramilitary operations. They possess training pipelines, funding networks, propaganda infrastructure andterritorial control. And they have orchestrated mass casualties such as the2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombings.

In short, they are military or criminal organizations with strategic intent. Noem's claim that antifa is just as dangerous" as these groups is not only empirically indefensible but rhetorically reckless.

Turning dissent into terrorism'

So why make such a claim?

Noem's statement fits squarely within the Trump administration'sbroader political strategythat has sought to inflate the perceived threat of left-wing activism.

Casting antifaas a domestic terrorist equivalent of the Islamic State nation or Hamas serves several functions.

It stokes fear among conservative audiences by linking street protests and progressive dissent to global terror networks. It also provides political cover forexpanded domestic surveillanceandharsher policing of protests.

Additionally, itdiscredits protest movements critical of the right. In a polarized media environment, such rhetoric performs a symbolic purpose. Itdivides the moral universeinto heroes and enemies, order and chaos, patriots and radicals.

Noem's comparison reflects a broader pattern in populist politics, where complex social movements are reduced tosimple, threatening caricatures. In recent years,some Republican leadershave used antifa as ashorthandfor all forms of left-wing unrest or criticism of authority.

Antifa's decentralized structure makes ita convenient target for blame. That's because it lacks clear boundaries, leadership and accountability. So any act by someone identifying with antifa can be framed as representing the whole movement, whether or not it does. And by linking antifa to terrorist groups, Noem, the top anti-terror official in the country, turns a political talking point into a claim that appears to carry the weight of national security expertise.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is not just that it's inaccurate. Equating protest movements with terrorist organizations blurs important distinctions that allowdemocratic societies to tolerate dissent. It also risks misdirecting attention and resources away from more serious threats - including organized, ideologically driven groups that remain the primary source of domestic terrorism in the U.S.

As I see it, Noem's claim reveals less about antifa and more about thepolitical uses of fear.

By invoking the language of terrorism to describe an anti-fascist movement, she taps into a potentemotional current in American politics: thedesire for clear enemies, simple explanations and moral certainty in times of division.

But effective homeland security depends on evidence, not ideology. To equate street-level confrontation with organized terror is not only wrong - itundermines the credibilityof the veryinstitutions charged with protecting the public.

Art Jipson is Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Dayton. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.