Antifa is not officially designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government or major international bodies.

Here’s a breakdown:

• What Antifa is:
  “Antifa” is short for anti-fascist. It’s not a centralized group, but rather a loose, decentralized movement of activists and networks that oppose far-right and fascist ideologies. Different groups under the “Antifa” label may use a range of tactics — from peaceful protest and counter-demonstrations to more confrontational or even violent direct action.

• Official designations:

  • In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI classify domestic violent extremism in various forms, but Antifa as a whole is not listed as a designated terrorist organization (that status is usually reserved for foreign entities, like al-Qaeda or ISIS).

  • Some politicians, especially in the U.S., have called Antifa a “terrorist group” in public statements, particularly after violent clashes. But this is a political characterization, not a legal designation.

  • European governments also do not list Antifa as a terror group. Instead, they often monitor far-left extremist networks under broader categories of “extremism.”

• Controversy:

  • Supporters of Antifa argue that they’re defending communities against fascists, white supremacists, and authoritarianism.

  • Critics say that Antifa’s confrontational tactics — property damage, street clashes, or harassment — cross into political violence and could resemble domestic terrorism in practice.

So, legally: Antifa is not designated a terrorist organization.
Politically: It’s sometimes labeled that way by opponents due to its violent tactics in certain protests.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is how U.S. and European law enforcement officially categorize Antifa:

United States

• FBI & DHS stance

  • The FBI treats “Antifa” not as a single group but as part of the anarchist extremist movement or anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists.

  • DHS reports describe Antifa-aligned individuals as part of the domestic violent extremist (DVE) threat landscape, especially when involved in riots or attacks on police and federal property.

  • Importantly, the FBI has said there’s no centralized Antifa organization — it’s more a collection of local activists and networks.

• Government statements

  • In 2020, some officials (including the Trump administration) pushed to label Antifa as a terrorist organization, but this never became law, and experts argued it wasn’t legally possible since U.S. law only allows foreign terror groups to be designated that way.

• Law enforcement practice

  • When violent incidents happen, the FBI charges individuals with crimes like rioting, assault, arson, or weapons charges. They don’t prosecute “membership in Antifa” since there’s no formal organization.

Europe

• Germany

  • Germany has a long history with militant left-wing groups. Authorities monitor some Antifa-aligned groups under “left-wing extremism.”

  • The domestic intelligence service (BfV) tracks Autonome Antifa cells when they cross into organized violence, but Antifa as a broad movement is not banned.

• UK

  • The UK has no official listing of Antifa as a terror group. Instead, authorities monitor far-left anarchist groups under extremism frameworks. The main legal designations in the UK focus on Islamist or far-right groups.

• France & Italy

  • Similar to Germany, they watch Antifa-inspired movements as part of broader “ultra-left” or anarchist extremism categories.

  • Violent protests (like against globalization or police brutality) sometimes involve Antifa networks, but they are policed as public order offenses or violent extremism, not terrorism.

Key Distinction

• Terrorism designation = formal, legal category with international consequences (like with al-Qaeda, ISIS).

• Extremism categorization = broader monitoring of political movements that can be violent but aren’t treated as globally coordinated terror networks.

Bottom line:

• U.S.: Antifa is tracked as part of domestic violent extremism, not terrorism.

• Europe: Monitored under left-wing or anarchist extremism, not terrorism.

• Nowhere is Antifa legally designated as a terrorist organization.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s a comparison chart showing how major governments and law enforcement bodies officially classify and deal with Antifa:

Antifa Categorization by Country

Key Takeaways

• Everywhere: Antifa is monitored, not outlawed.

• U.S.: Viewed as part of domestic violent extremism, but legally impossible to designate as a terror group (terror list is only for foreign orgs).

• Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy): Treated as left-wing/anarchist extremism, with militant factions under surveillance.

• Legal Status: No country officially designates Antifa as a terrorist organization.

In practice: Antifa is a police and intelligence issue, not a legal terrorist designation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In America is the proud boys are more dangerous with their actions than antifa?

The answer depends on which lens you use: law enforcement data, political framing, or media coverage.

Let’s look at it systematically:

Law Enforcement Data

• FBI & DHS assessments

  • The FBI has repeatedly warned that far-right extremist groups, including militia movements and white supremacists, pose the most lethal domestic terror threat in the U.S.

  • DHS reports (2020–2023) consistently identify white supremacist and right-wing extremist violence as a higher priority threat than far-left groups.

• Proud Boys specifically

  • The Proud Boys are a structured, self-identified group with leaders, chapters, and membership.

  • Several Proud Boys members were charged and convicted for their role in the January 6th Capitol attack, with some convicted of seditious conspiracy — a very serious domestic terror-related charge.

  • Canada has officially designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization (2021).

• Antifa comparison

  • Antifa is a loose, decentralized movement with no national leadership.

  • Antifa-linked violence is generally street-level clashes, vandalism, or property destruction, rather than coordinated large-scale attacks.

  • U.S. officials report no Antifa member has been charged with terrorism or sedition.

Danger Level: Proud Boys vs. Antifa

• Proud Boys:

  • More centralized and organized.

  • Involved in deadly incidents, planned political violence, and high-profile attacks like Jan. 6.

  • Recognized internationally (in Canada, New Zealand) as a terrorist group.

• Antifa:

  • Decentralized, harder to track.

  • Involved in riots and violent protests, but typically localized and defensive (clashing with far-right groups or police).

  • No government has officially designated them as a terror group.

That means the answer is: Right.
From a law enforcement and security perspective, the Proud Boys are considered more dangerous than Antifa because of their organization, political violence, and role in attempts to subvert democracy.

Here are some statistics and data comparing violence (fatalities, incidents) attributed to far-right extremists vs far-left extremists in the U.S. over recent decades. Some of it is approximate because definitions, classifications, and sources vary, but the pattern is fairly consistent.

Key Data: Far-Right=Proud boys/ Far-Left Antifa(Anti-Facist)

Above records shows the "Proud Boys" of America more dangerous with many deaths and destructions.

Interpretation

• The evidence shows that far-right extremist violence causes substantially more deaths overall than far-left (including Antifa‐type or anarchist) extremist violence in the U.S.

• The gap is large, both in terms of incidents and lethality (i.e. when far-right extremists act, their actions tend to have higher fatality rates).

• Far-left extremist violence does occur, but the data suggests it is less frequent, less lethal, and generally involves fewer organized, large scale attacks compared to far-right.

Based on this data, your earlier assertion that the Proud Boys (a far-right extremist group) are “more dangerous” in terms of impact than Antifa (or far-left extremist movement) is supported by the trends and numbers.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Trump is wrong to use antifa as a political shot-

It’s a defensible position to say yes, Trump is wrong to use “Antifa” as a political shot — there are real problems with doing so. But “wrong” isn’t absolute; it’s a matter of legal, ethical, political, and factual grounds. Let me walk through arguments for and against, then where I land.

Arguments that Trump is wrong to weaponize “Antifa” politically

1. Lack of a coherent organization

   • “Antifa” is best understood not as a single hierarchical group, but a decentralized ideology / movement composed of many local actors. 

   • Because of that, applying sweeping labels like “terrorist organization” risks targeting broad political speech, protest, or dissent rather than discrete violent actors.

2. Legal constraints & First Amendment concerns

   • U.S. law currently has no mechanism to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations in the same way as foreign groups. 

   • Broadly characterizing a movement as “terrorist” can chill free speech, free association, and protest rights, especially when legal definitions are vague.

3. Misleading the public / oversimplification

   • Using “Antifa” as a catch-all blame for civil unrest or protest violence oversimplifies the phenomenon, obscures nuance, and distracts from more dangerous threats (e.g. organized far-right groups).

   • Scholars and analysts say that most domestic extremist violence in recent decades is from right-wing actors, not from Antifa-type actors. 

4. Rhetoric fueling polarization and violence

   • Political leaders’ incendiary language can help normalize violence, give implicit permission, or shift the Overton window toward more extreme actions. 

   • Critics warn that such rhetoric risks being used to justify crackdowns on political opposition or civil liberties. 

5. Inconsistency / selective targeting

   • If one labels left-wing protest groups as “terrorists” while ignoring or excusing far-right violence, that suggests a double standard, undermining credibility.

   • Indeed, many critics point to data showing far-right violence is more lethal and frequent.

Counterarguments (i.e. where some might say he’s not entirely “wrong”)

• Political strategy

  • In politics, framing opponents as dangerous can galvanize one’s base. From a purely tactical view, calling out Antifa may help Trump shore up support among voters concerned with law and order.

• Addressing real violence

  • It is true that some confrontations involving Antifa or related actors have turned violent or destructive. Advocates of the label argue that law enforcement should not ignore such episodes.

• Executive authority claims

  • Some proponents argue a president has broad authority under “national security” or “insurrection / domestic violence” powers to act against groups deemed threatening — though legal scholars dispute how far that power extends.

• Signaling policy intent

  • Even if the legal effect is limited, designating or labeling Antifa as a terror threat sends a symbolic signal about shift in policy priorities (e.g. more aggressive law enforcement against left-wing activists).

My assessment

On balance, I believe Trump is wrong to use “Antifa” as a political shot, for the following reasons:

• The move is factually shaky (Antifa isn’t a cohesive terrorist-style group).

• It raises serious constitutional and civil liberties risks.

• It distracts from more serious and better-documented threats (especially right-wing extremism).

• It feeds into polarization and may contribute to excesses in law enforcement or political repression.

That said, labeling “wrong” doesn’t mean there are no legitimate concerns about violence, protest tactics, or public safety — there are. But conflating or overstating the threat for political effect is dangerous.