SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Attorney General William Barr speaks as President Donald Trump listens during a press conference the White House on July 11, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chen Mengtong/China News Service/Visual China Group via Getty Images)
Civil liberties advocates and progressive voices threw up immediate flags of alarm on Sunday afternoon after President Donald Trump threatened to officially designate "ANTIFA"--a moniker that stands for anti-fascist but is not, as informed people were forced to point out, an actual organization--as a "terrorist organization."
In recent years, the term ANTIFA has become a broad stand-in phrase used to describe certain left-wing activists--including some anarchist and anti-fascist groups or networks. As protests and uprisings have occurred in cities nationwide over recent days in the wake of last week's killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Trump and other officials have blamed so-called "Antifa instigators"--mostly without providing any solid evidence--with stoking violence or carrying out property destruction.
After Trump tweeted Sunday that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," critics immediately saw it as a blatant effort to use the authority of such a designation as a way for Trump to target lawful and constitutionally-protected free speech and the right to assemble.
"Terrorism is an inherently political label, easily abused and misused," ACLU declared in reaction to Trump's tweet. "Let's be clear: There is no legal authority for designating a domestic group. Any such designation would raise significant due process and First Amendment concerns."
Progressive journalists like Ben Norton and Jeremy Scahill also sounded warnings, calling it a "terrifying" and worrying escalation against the right to dissent.
\u201cThis is terrifying. Understand what is happening here: Antifa is not an actual organization; it's a decentralized group. There are no "Antifa leaders."\n\nSo now the US government will have the "right" to imprison anyone for "terrorism," if it just claims they're part of "Antifa."\u201d— Ben Norton (@Ben Norton) 1590948268
While some critics smirked at the idiocy of the president's initial threat on Twitter--"What an idiot," said one--others warned that the implications of Trump following through on such a threat would be very serious.
"Trump," warned Scahill, "is going to use this order against the label of ANTIFA to dramatically escalate the use of force and expand domestic spying against protesters and targeted communities inside the [United States]."
Glenn Greenwald, Schahill's colleague at The Intercept, said Trump's threat was "as incoherent as it is dangerous," and warned that 'the only possible outcome, if it is more than just a Twitter scream, is increased domestic repression, surveillance, and the quashing of dissent: the classic case of exploiting disorder for authortarian ends."
\u201cAny Antifa \u201cterrorism\u201d order would have all the amorphous ambiguities and endless expansions of power abuses that we saw (and still see) with The War on Terror, but applied (even more than now) domestically, to core speech & dissent rights.\n\nSupporting that would be madness.\u201d— Glenn Greenwald (@Glenn Greenwald) 1590954197
Following Trump's tweet, Attorney General William Barr issued a formal Justice Department statement that said "violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly," and cited use of the FBI's existing regional Joint Terrrorism Task Forces (JTTF) had already been activated to "identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources" with local and state law enforcement agencies.
In response to Barr's statement, Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said: "Hey, AG Barr, where is your statment on what USDOJ will do to build community-police trust? That recognizes how racial injustice has corroded people's faith in the legal system and its impact on public safety? How about opening a pattern and practice investigation [on that]."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Civil liberties advocates and progressive voices threw up immediate flags of alarm on Sunday afternoon after President Donald Trump threatened to officially designate "ANTIFA"--a moniker that stands for anti-fascist but is not, as informed people were forced to point out, an actual organization--as a "terrorist organization."
In recent years, the term ANTIFA has become a broad stand-in phrase used to describe certain left-wing activists--including some anarchist and anti-fascist groups or networks. As protests and uprisings have occurred in cities nationwide over recent days in the wake of last week's killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Trump and other officials have blamed so-called "Antifa instigators"--mostly without providing any solid evidence--with stoking violence or carrying out property destruction.
After Trump tweeted Sunday that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," critics immediately saw it as a blatant effort to use the authority of such a designation as a way for Trump to target lawful and constitutionally-protected free speech and the right to assemble.
"Terrorism is an inherently political label, easily abused and misused," ACLU declared in reaction to Trump's tweet. "Let's be clear: There is no legal authority for designating a domestic group. Any such designation would raise significant due process and First Amendment concerns."
Progressive journalists like Ben Norton and Jeremy Scahill also sounded warnings, calling it a "terrifying" and worrying escalation against the right to dissent.
\u201cThis is terrifying. Understand what is happening here: Antifa is not an actual organization; it's a decentralized group. There are no "Antifa leaders."\n\nSo now the US government will have the "right" to imprison anyone for "terrorism," if it just claims they're part of "Antifa."\u201d— Ben Norton (@Ben Norton) 1590948268
While some critics smirked at the idiocy of the president's initial threat on Twitter--"What an idiot," said one--others warned that the implications of Trump following through on such a threat would be very serious.
"Trump," warned Scahill, "is going to use this order against the label of ANTIFA to dramatically escalate the use of force and expand domestic spying against protesters and targeted communities inside the [United States]."
Glenn Greenwald, Schahill's colleague at The Intercept, said Trump's threat was "as incoherent as it is dangerous," and warned that 'the only possible outcome, if it is more than just a Twitter scream, is increased domestic repression, surveillance, and the quashing of dissent: the classic case of exploiting disorder for authortarian ends."
\u201cAny Antifa \u201cterrorism\u201d order would have all the amorphous ambiguities and endless expansions of power abuses that we saw (and still see) with The War on Terror, but applied (even more than now) domestically, to core speech & dissent rights.\n\nSupporting that would be madness.\u201d— Glenn Greenwald (@Glenn Greenwald) 1590954197
Following Trump's tweet, Attorney General William Barr issued a formal Justice Department statement that said "violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly," and cited use of the FBI's existing regional Joint Terrrorism Task Forces (JTTF) had already been activated to "identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources" with local and state law enforcement agencies.
In response to Barr's statement, Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said: "Hey, AG Barr, where is your statment on what USDOJ will do to build community-police trust? That recognizes how racial injustice has corroded people's faith in the legal system and its impact on public safety? How about opening a pattern and practice investigation [on that]."
Civil liberties advocates and progressive voices threw up immediate flags of alarm on Sunday afternoon after President Donald Trump threatened to officially designate "ANTIFA"--a moniker that stands for anti-fascist but is not, as informed people were forced to point out, an actual organization--as a "terrorist organization."
In recent years, the term ANTIFA has become a broad stand-in phrase used to describe certain left-wing activists--including some anarchist and anti-fascist groups or networks. As protests and uprisings have occurred in cities nationwide over recent days in the wake of last week's killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Trump and other officials have blamed so-called "Antifa instigators"--mostly without providing any solid evidence--with stoking violence or carrying out property destruction.
After Trump tweeted Sunday that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," critics immediately saw it as a blatant effort to use the authority of such a designation as a way for Trump to target lawful and constitutionally-protected free speech and the right to assemble.
"Terrorism is an inherently political label, easily abused and misused," ACLU declared in reaction to Trump's tweet. "Let's be clear: There is no legal authority for designating a domestic group. Any such designation would raise significant due process and First Amendment concerns."
Progressive journalists like Ben Norton and Jeremy Scahill also sounded warnings, calling it a "terrifying" and worrying escalation against the right to dissent.
\u201cThis is terrifying. Understand what is happening here: Antifa is not an actual organization; it's a decentralized group. There are no "Antifa leaders."\n\nSo now the US government will have the "right" to imprison anyone for "terrorism," if it just claims they're part of "Antifa."\u201d— Ben Norton (@Ben Norton) 1590948268
While some critics smirked at the idiocy of the president's initial threat on Twitter--"What an idiot," said one--others warned that the implications of Trump following through on such a threat would be very serious.
"Trump," warned Scahill, "is going to use this order against the label of ANTIFA to dramatically escalate the use of force and expand domestic spying against protesters and targeted communities inside the [United States]."
Glenn Greenwald, Schahill's colleague at The Intercept, said Trump's threat was "as incoherent as it is dangerous," and warned that 'the only possible outcome, if it is more than just a Twitter scream, is increased domestic repression, surveillance, and the quashing of dissent: the classic case of exploiting disorder for authortarian ends."
\u201cAny Antifa \u201cterrorism\u201d order would have all the amorphous ambiguities and endless expansions of power abuses that we saw (and still see) with The War on Terror, but applied (even more than now) domestically, to core speech & dissent rights.\n\nSupporting that would be madness.\u201d— Glenn Greenwald (@Glenn Greenwald) 1590954197
Following Trump's tweet, Attorney General William Barr issued a formal Justice Department statement that said "violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly," and cited use of the FBI's existing regional Joint Terrrorism Task Forces (JTTF) had already been activated to "identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources" with local and state law enforcement agencies.
In response to Barr's statement, Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said: "Hey, AG Barr, where is your statment on what USDOJ will do to build community-police trust? That recognizes how racial injustice has corroded people's faith in the legal system and its impact on public safety? How about opening a pattern and practice investigation [on that]."
Any such effort, said one democracy watchdog, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
In his latest full-frontal assault on democratic access and voting rights, President Donald Trump early Monday said he will lead an effort to ban both mail-in ballots and voting machines for next year's mid-term elections—a vow met with immediate rebuke from progressive critics.
"I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election," Trump wrote in a social media post infested with lies and falsehoods.
Trump falsely claimed that no other country in the world uses mail-in voting—a blatant lie, according to International IDEA, which monitors democratic trends worldwide, at least 34 nations allow for in-country postal voting of some kind. The group notes that over 100 countries allow out-of-country postal voting for citizens living or stationed overseas during an election.
Trump has repeated his false claim—over and over again—that he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost, in part due to fraud related to mail-in ballots, though the lie has been debunked ad nauseam. He also fails to note that mail-in ballots were very much in use nationwide in 2024, with an estimated 30% of voters casting a mail-in ballot as opposed to in-person during the election in which Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took back the US Senate and retained the US House of Representatives.
Monday's rant by Trump came just days after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Trump claimed commented personally on the 2020 election and mail-in ballots. In a Friday night interview with Fox News, Trump claimed "one of the most interesting" things Putin said during their talks about ending the war in Ukraine was about mail-in voting in the United States and how Trump would have won the election were it not for voter fraud, echoing Trump's own disproven claims.
Trump: Vladimir Putin said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting… he talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.. it was a rigged election. pic.twitter.com/m8v0tXuiDQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2025
Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order on election processes, suggesting that it would forbid mail-in ballots as well as the automatic tabulation machines used in states nationwide. He also said that states, which are in charge of administering their elections at the local level, "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, which tracks voting rights and issues related to ballot access, said any executive order by Trump to end mail-in voting or forbid provenly safe and accurate voting machines ahead of the midterms would be "unconstitutional and illegal."
Such an effort, said Elias, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.