After the news broke that a man sprayed sniper fire at an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office in Dallas, President Trump exploded in an extended Truth Social rant. But sprinkled in among the usual lies, unhinged megalomania, and all-caps raging was a hint of something ominous to come.
“This violence is the result of the Radical Left Democrats constantly demonizing Law Enforcement, calling for ICE to be demolished, and comparing ICE Officers to ‘Nazis,’” Trump fumed, adding that he will soon “dismantle these Domestic Terrorism Networks.”
To grasp the significance of this, we need to look at Trump’s missive—along with tweets about the Texas shooting from Stephen Miller and JD Vance, which used similar language—in the context of his recent threats to crack down on liberal and left-wing groups.
Take all that together, and it’s likely the administration is gearing up to use this shooting—and other alleged violence against ICE—as a pretext to launch precisely that crackdown on the liberal-left. This would work as follows: The administration would seek to investigate liberal or left-leaning groups—either criminally or through other agencies like the IRS—if their rhetoric or other activities can be somehow blamed for violence and hostility toward ICE.
This was basically confirmed to me by Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of Trump and Miller, in a series of texts. I asked Bannon if the administration will respond to the Texas shooting and other violence toward ICE officers by bringing law enforcement investigations against groups that are using anti-ICE rhetoric.
“Absolutely,” Bannon replied. He cited Trump’s recent executive order designating Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization” along with reports that the FBI may label transgender people or groups as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” people who commit violence due to “deep hatred of society.”
These are “game changers,” Bannon texted me about those measures, adding: “now you will see the power of the state crush this escalating political violence.”
When I asked Bannon if this means federal law enforcement will or should criminally investigate groups for being “critical of ICE,” Bannon said no. But he suggested investigations will and should target those “taking action” on this front as well as the “media for goading it on.”
The phrase “goading it on” is awfully vague. It seems to mean federal law enforcement should and will investigate those who can be declared to be “goading” political violence.
Indeed, to illustrate his point, Bannon texted me a piece from the right-wing Federalist suggesting that the media’s supposed downplaying of leftist violence makes them “active participants” in it. That understanding would open the door for federal investigations of all kinds of groups, including the media, based on speech that can be labeled incitement to violence.
Think that’s far-fetched? Stephen Miller is telegraphing this, too. After the Texas shooting, Miller responded to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who described masked ICE arrests without due process as “authoritarian.” Miller tweeted: “This language incites violence and terrorism.”
I asked Bannon if he thinks Miller’s tweet means federal law enforcement should and will now criminally investigate groups who describe ICE as “authoritarian.”
“Yes,” Bannon replied. “Stephen Miller is correct—more importantly he’s in charge.” When I asked why that isn’t First Amendment-protected speech, he didn’t answer, though in fairness he may have been prepping for a podcast at that point.
While Bannon isn’t an administration official, he speaks to people inside it at the highest levels. This is a clear signal of what top MAGA influencers very much expect—and a clear indication of one way this could all go. The framework for all this has been put in place. You just have to connect some dots.
Start with the Texas shooting. Numerous Trump officials immediately associated the shooter (who killed himself) with the left. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem linked him to “unprecedented violence” against ICE. Vance called him a “violent left-wing extremist.” And after liberal podcaster Jon Favreau called out Vance for jumping ahead of known facts, Vance declared: “The gunman had anti-ICE messaging carved on the bullets that he used.”
That’s a reference to the FBI’s display of shell casings from the shooting, one of which had written on it: “ANTI-ICE.” But the only victim who died was an ICE detainee. And officials now believe that while he did despise ICE and the federal government, he was not a member of any group and acted alone.
The rush to associate this act with liberal and left-wing groups and other incendiary rhetoric about law enforcement, however, signals the use of this incident—and others that can be similarly manipulated—as a pretext for federally investigating groups engaged in wholly lawful advocacy.
Now look at Trump’s executive order. While Trump can’t legally designate domestic organizations as terrorist groups, the order also targets “individuals associated with” Antifa who “coordinate with other organizations” for the purpose of “advancing political violence.”
Antifa is not an organized group—it’s a vaguely-defined ideology. So this absurdly hazy drafting seems to direct agencies to investigate groups that can somehow be characterized as attempting to “coordinate with” or be “associated with” whatever Trump describes as “Antifa” on any given day. On Thursday, Trump followed up with a presidential memorandum ordering law enforcement agencies to search out and prosecute such activity.
Some liberal advocacy groups are now preparing to potentially face government investigations trumped up on the pretext that their criticism of ICE constitutes incitement, lawyers and other officials told me. The Texas shooting heightened their alarm.
“We’re absolutely expecting that they’re going to use this moment, and what they consider anti-ICE rhetoric, to come after organizations,” a senior leader at a top immigration advocacy group told me. “We have been doing everything we can to prepare.”
“Organizations have been gearing up for government investigations based on pretexts that include constitutionally protected speech and advocacy,” added a leading lawyer who’s advising many civil society and immigration advocacy groups on how to prepare for the coming onslaught.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that many Cabinet members and agency heads are working to identify groups whose activities “led to” violence, whatever that means. The vagueness, of course, is the point. Let’s be clear: Top government officials are actively looking for political activity that they can pretend to tangentially link to violence. Like, say, organizing politically against ICE arrests or calling its tactics “authoritarian.”
Still, this may not be easy for Trump. One tactic the administration is reportedly mulling is yanking nonprofit organizations’ tax-exempt status. But that’s a cumbersome process with many legal protections built in for targeted groups. And if the administration launches criminal investigations of organizations it contrives to link to violence, it would run into the First Amendment, no matter how frantic Miller’s tweets get.
That’s because no court will accept that something like calling ICE “authoritarian” constitutes incitement of “violence” or “terrorism” under the law, as it’s political expression and advocacy, says Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. Heck, even expressing open sympathy for Antifa is protected speech.
“You will not find a First Amendment scholar or litigator anywhere who will tell you that this crosses a constitutional line,” Jaffer told me. “It’s plainly protected.”
Of course, this won’t dissuade Trump and Miller. The Justice Department is reportedly having serious internal conversations about how to bring criminal charges against billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, expressly to carry out Trump’s demand for exactly this. However real that proves, dangling the mere possibility of investigations and prosecutions is an end in itself here.
“The threat to do it is itself a form of intimidation,” Jaffer told me. “It’s intended to chill lawful political expression.”
That’s the real rub. Officials at these groups tell me they must strike a balance between being clear-eyed about how bad this could get while not letting it discourage political activity. That latter form of surrender is exactly what Trump and Miller want. And under no circumstances should anybody willingly hand it over to them.
