WASHINGTON — A senior FBI official ignited sharp controversy on Capitol Hill this week after declaring the anti-fascist movement known as antifa to be the most serious domestic terrorism threat facing the United States, a claim that immediately drew skepticism from Democratic lawmakers and renewed partisan tensions over how domestic extremism is defined and addressed.
Testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee during its annual “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” hearing, Michael Glasheen, operations director of the FBI’s National Security Branch, said the bureau considers antifa its “primary concern” when it comes to domestic violent extremism. He described the movement as “the most immediate violent threat that we’re facing,” pointing to an increase in investigations and arrests tied to antifa-related activity.
However, Glasheen struggled to provide specifics when pressed by lawmakers, particularly Democrats, about the structure, size, and geographic footprint of antifa—an amorphous movement that many experts describe not as an organization but as a loose ideology.
The exchange quickly became one of the most contentious moments of the hearing, underscoring the deep partisan divide over domestic security priorities, political extremism, and the role of federal law enforcement.
Questions Without Clear Answers
The sharpest questioning came from U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the committee, who challenged Glasheen to substantiate his sweeping assessment.
When asked where antifa is based or how many members it has, Glasheen acknowledged that the movement’s nature makes such questions difficult to answer. He described antifa as “very fluid,” adding that investigations are ongoing and that membership numbers shift constantly.
That response prompted visible frustration from Thompson.
“Sir, you wouldn’t come to this committee to say something that you can’t prove,” Thompson said. “I know you wouldn’t do that. But you did.”
The moment crystallized a long-running debate in Washington: whether antifa should be treated as a centralized domestic terror organization or as a decentralized ideological current whose adherents occasionally engage in violence.
FBI Defends Its Position
Following the hearing, an FBI spokesperson issued a statement defending Glasheen’s testimony, saying the bureau is “aggressively pursuing violent actors of antifa as well as their networks and funding sources.”
The spokesperson emphasized that the FBI’s focus is not on ideology itself, but on individuals who commit or plan acts of violence under the banner of anti-fascism.
Glasheen later told lawmakers that the bureau currently has approximately 70 active investigations tied to antifa and that arrests linked to those investigations are up 171 percent this year. He did not provide a detailed breakdown of what types of crimes were involved or how many cases resulted in convictions.
Trump Administration’s Hard Line
The testimony aligns closely with the Trump administration’s long-standing view of antifa as a serious national security threat. President Donald Trump formally designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization in September, a move applauded by conservatives but criticized by civil liberties groups and many legal scholars.
Critics argue that antifa is better understood as an anti-fascist and anti-white-supremacist ideology rather than a hierarchical entity capable of being designated in the same way as foreign terrorist organizations. Supporters of the designation counter that the lack of structure does not negate the violence committed by individuals acting under the movement’s banner.
Trump has repeatedly accused antifa of instigating unrest, vandalism, and attacks on law enforcement, particularly during protests in recent years. His allies argue that federal agencies were slow to confront left-wing extremism while focusing disproportionately on other forms of domestic threats.
A Partisan Hearing
The broader hearing reflected those political fault lines. Glasheen testified alongside Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, both of whom echoed the administration’s tough rhetoric on security and immigration.
The FBI director traditionally appears at the annual worldwide threats hearing, but Director Kash Patel did not attend this year, a notable absence that drew quiet criticism from some lawmakers.
Secretary Noem, for her part, used the hearing to deliver a blistering critique of lawmakers she accused of undermining immigration enforcement. She described the defense of individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws as “shameful” and suggested that members of Congress should rewrite the laws if they oppose current enforcement practices.
“That’s your job,” Noem said bluntly. “So you should all be fired, in my opinion.”
Her remarks further heightened the confrontational tone of the session.
Immigration and Security Intersect
Noem also criticized vetting standards under former President Joe Biden, arguing that weaknesses in the system allowed dangerous individuals to enter or remain in the country. She cited a recent case involving an Afghan immigrant accused of attacking National Guard members in Washington, D.C.
According to Noem, the suspect had been granted asylum earlier this year, raising questions about screening procedures. Democrats pushed back on the characterization, noting that the asylum decision occurred while Trump was still in office, complicating the narrative of responsibility.
The exchange illustrated how discussions of terrorism, immigration, and domestic security have become deeply intertwined—and politically charged.
Defining “Domestic Terrorism”
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental disagreement over how domestic terrorism should be defined and prioritized. Law enforcement agencies must navigate a complex legal landscape in which ideology is protected speech, while violent actions are criminal offenses.
Civil liberties advocates warn that labeling loosely organized movements as terrorist threats risks overreach and could chill lawful protest. They argue that focusing too narrowly on antifa ignores threats from other forms of extremism.
Republicans counter that federal agencies have, in their view, downplayed left-wing violence while aggressively pursuing other ideological threats. They say acknowledging antifa as a major concern is long overdue.
Political Implications
The testimony is likely to reverberate beyond the hearing room. Republicans are expected to use Glasheen’s remarks to bolster arguments for expanded domestic terrorism statutes and tougher law-and-order policies. Democrats, meanwhile, may push for greater transparency and evidence-based assessments before adopting such labels.
The debate also comes as the FBI faces heightened scrutiny from both sides of the aisle, with some Republicans accusing it of political bias and some Democrats questioning its prioritization of threats.
What Comes Next
For now, the FBI maintains that its focus remains on violence, not ideology. But the lack of concrete details provided during the hearing has fueled skepticism and raised questions about how the bureau measures and compares domestic threats.
As domestic extremism continues to dominate national security discussions, future hearings are likely to revisit the issue—potentially with even sharper scrutiny.
What remains clear is that the question of antifa’s role in domestic terrorism is no longer a fringe debate. It has become a central flashpoint in Washington’s broader struggle to define security, accountability, and the boundaries of federal power in an era of deep political division.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
