The Further Fracturing Of Democracy - Trump Orders Broad Effort to Root Out Groups He Says Organize Political Violence - The New York Times
By: Devlin Barrett (nytimes)
Peel away the layers of the onion... The President is not even trying to hide his anti-democratic intent and the backers of the President are finding it harder to deny that his intentions are ultimately autocratic as he presses for political persecution of his enemies and figureheads of the non-existent "Deep State"
The groups that he doesn't like for a variety of reasons are now up for investigation. Using the foil of Charlie Kirk's murder by a single individual as an excuse to go after the boogeyman of antifa and other left leaning agencies in the transparent effort to chill the speech that is used against him and his causes, he is attempting to dry up the funding for any of a laundry list of groups who might happen to espouse actually being free to say what you damn well please.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Trump has long maintained that liberal activists and organizations secretly fund political violence. Law enforcement officials say efforts like the antifascist movement are often disparate groups.
Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, and Attorney General Pam Bondi attended the announcement of the memorandum on Thursday.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
By Devlin Barrett
Reporting from Washington
Sept. 25, 2025
President Trump on Thursday ordered his administration to investigate what he claimed were rich people and organizations funding left-wing political violence around the country, citing the recent assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In a presidential memorandum, Mr. Trump moved to marshal the forces of the F.B.I., Justice Department and Treasury Department to find and prosecute such activity and the "institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in the criminal conduct."
The accusation — that liberal activists and organizations have secretly funded and organized a kind of professional brigade of anarchists around the country to attack law enforcement officers, destroy property and create public havoc — was one that Mr. Trump has made many times before.
Law enforcement officials have long said that efforts like the antifascist movement, or antifa, are more of a disparate collection of like-minded people who generally do not take instruction from organizational leaders. Mr. Trump has argued the opposite, claiming without evidence that hidden hands fund, aid and direct attacks on the government, law enforcement and Republicans.
"We're looking at the funders of a lot of these groups," he said on Thursday, adding that "wealthy people" were hiring "professional anarchists and agitators."
The White House announcement was attended by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, who indicated that the bureau's joint terrorism task forces would be used to carry out the president's directive.
The memorandum ordered those task forces to provide regular updates to Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser, who called the plan "an all-of-government effort to dismantle left-wing terrorism, to dismantle antifa."
The White House announcement came hours after The New York Times reported that a senior Justice Department official had instructed more than a half dozen U.S. attorneys' offices around the country to present plans for investigating a philanthropic organization funded by the billionaire Democratic donor George Soros.
Asked if the memorandum was related to the department's interest in investigating Mr. Soros's group, Mr. Trump was evasive, but said that Mr. Soros would "be a likely candidate" for investigation.
Devlin Barrett covers the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for The Times.
Please be nice.
Any comments deemed not nice by the Seeder or a moderator will be deleted forthwith
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Donald Trump is a sick, sick man.
Probably, but I'm not sure I disagree with the idea of prosecuting people who organize or engage in political violence.
Well, that's the rub, is it not? Ostensibly, the reason is to stop the organizers of violence. Just making that statement requires 1) people who organize "political violence", and 2) A definition of what political violence is and how exactly it occurs. I am sure that one will not find the first on their organization homepage, and the second seems likely to quickly descend into the realms of Bill of Rights litigation.
I think the real reason for these actions by the administration is to induce a chilling effect on perfectly legal and ordinary uses of funding. The gov't comes in, makes a big stink, lots of legal fees ensue and the target of this "enforcement action" is caused to cease doing business not because they actually did anything wrong, but because the financial stresses were too great. I believe that Trump has used this method in his own life and sees little reason why it cannot be used in the public sphere, ethics be damned. So, fewer funds going to the left, fewer funds being distributed to left leaning organizations, fewer organizations. All very unethical and discriminatory.
Certainly. I would say "rubs", plural. Yeah, not only would there be questions about multiple definitions, but also about how they would establish the connection.
You and I have spoken about protests before. While I am not a proponent of protesting in the modern age of digital communication, I am a very big proponent of the 1st Amendment and your right to do this thing I don't think is remotely effective.
I think the struggle here is accountability when things do turn violent. Right now there doesn't seem to be very much.
It's easy to say "Antifa isn't an organization". OK, but all these people showed up in the same place at the same time in the same clothes.... so somebody organized something.
It's also easy to say "I'm protesting peacefully". OK, but the three guys who rode with you just set fire to another squad car.
So while I'm a fierce defender of the right to assemble, I'm also believe you need to be held accountable if your "protest" devolves into looting another Target.
There are plenty of laws on the books already to deal with such an instance.
It's easy to form a flash mob and the authorities have the keys to a lot of the ways that the communication is conveyed.
Again, there are laws to deal with the three people who set the fire. Are you seriously suggesting that the person who gave them a ride be held liable? That would require evidence of foreknowledge. I believe there are already laws for the charging of accomplices that cover that situation.
As long as the organizers of the assembly do not commit crimes and cannot be shown to have criminal intent in the organization of the assembly, I can see no way to Constitutionally charge them because they have limited ways of managing attendance, especially once an assembly has started.
If people can be caught. Antifa activists have been pretty effective at getting away.
True. I'm not sure what the new processes will be. I suspect they'll be looking into where the money comes from.
I don't think they're talking about any new laws. I think they're talking about enforcing existing laws more robustly.
You can absolutely make the case for negligence, which would make them liable for damages.
In the case of antifa, I am not sure but I think that it's mostly self funded. A lot of the smaller protest groups are likewise supported by donations from their membership.
Any organized protest that I have ever attended had specific instructions to not participate in violent activities, period. Engaging with counter protesters is verboten. The organizers offered de-escalation training beforehand. There were marked leaders that participants could go to if anyone was acting out of line. There are people dealing with logistics, coordinating with the local authorities, all in an effort to be in control of the situation at all times.
Which is why I think that
Is not a feasible statement.
It bears repeating that this is a pretextual move by the administration. That is, it is designed to look like they are only going after bad people who fund violence, but it’s actual purpose is to chill free speech by the threat of government action.
Could be. I'm obviously not involved so I wouldn't have any first hand knowledge. I have seen questions raised about how all of these groups have professionally printed signs and banners, and often times on very short notice.
That's actually very good to hear. I hope people learned some lessons about "counter protesting" from Charlottesville. Nobody wants to see something like that again.
Until now, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of legal action taken against organizers of protests that went south. I suspect that might change. It may not be something they consider, but organizing a protest when there is an oversized chance it will turn violent can be considered negligence, and if somebody gets hurt it becomes criminal negligence.
Define oversized.
I don't buy that logic. If an organizer takes the steps and performs due diligence including having an end time for the protest, the people there, who are supposed to leave the vicinity, assume the responsibility, not the organizers.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Everyone has it and should be reminded of it. The organizers are responsible for their part. Once their part is over, responsibility is assumed by the individuals.
How dare he go after the sacred right to fund violence.
How dare you you come in with a nonsense comment.
Anything to contribute or are you just s trolling along?
I'm posting facts.
There was more violence today at another ICE facility.
When will it end Thomas?
Post 1.2 was purely partisan nonsense designed to inflame. The very definition of trolling.
What relevance does that have to this article? Are you saying that the perpetrator was funded by some organization?
How the hell should I know?
When everyone in the world is dead?
People sure like to fight, so I imagine that the last two humans on earth will strangle or bludgeon each other to death because of some imagined slight. "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!"
Trump will do whatever he can get away with in the direction of him becoming a dictator. It is up to the people of this country to make sure he cannot get away with it. He needs to be impeached as soon as possible.
The Democrats vacillate too much on how dangerous he is, they need two or three key leaders who stay on that message all the time.
It will do no good to impeach him if the Senate won't convict him. He will crank up the witch hunt machine and everything will go garble glarb.
Part of this is to further discourage any participation in the '26 election cycle. He is moving so quickly because if the people are wise to his actions, they will elect Democrats to the majority of seats.
Go out and organize the opposition with concrete examples not only of what he has done but what will be done to rectify the multitude of wrongs perpetrated by this President and in his name.
When I say impeachment I am including Senate conviction and removal. I dont think that will be impossible when we reach the stage when Trump goes too far for even some Republican senators. He is mentally erratic at best and he eventually will outrage even the Rand Paul type.
Considering that the Democrats have no discernable leaders, who do you suggest?
Imagine being upset at this. Why should funding of violence be tolerated?
It is a pretext to chill speech and dry up the funding.
Define Political violence. Define funding for the same.
So this is the next hill the dems want to die on? Heaven forbid anyone tries to investigate political violence.
Like Jan 6th ?
" We love you; you're very special."
included in Trump tweet to the "rioters" at the Capitol building.
Hopefully this won't be turned into a made for tv farse
It sounds like you are saying the Capitol riot was a made for tv farce? Who made it?
Define political violence and how one would go about funding it.
This is an example of a pretext. The administration is saying that they want to stop political violence when the real reason they are instituting this policy is to chill left leaning funding of anything. But you know that.
Good luck convincing people of that as everyone sees the rhetoric and violence grow every week. Once again complain about Trump doing something without an actual plan and nothing more than "but both sides do it"
Answer the question. Here it is again in case you missed it in your hurry to snark.
Define political violence and how one would go about funding it.
This is an example of a pretext. The administration is saying that they want to stop political violence when the real reason they are instituting this policy is to chill left leaning funding of anything.
The question is lame. You can fund almost anything you want. The rest is just conspiracy theory. Long live blue anon
No, it is directly pertinent to the topic of the seed. If one is going to prosecute a crime, that crime needs to be defined. What constitutes political violence? How does one go about funding political violence?
Don't you wish. It might make sleeping easier.
Revoke the pardons of the J6 rioters if they want to go after the violent masses that attacked the Capitol. The pink pussycat hat Women's March sure isn't the culprit. Neither are the colored chalk crosswalk groups in Florida.