“It Can’t Happen Here”? Designating Antifa as a Terrorist Organisation in Europe

On 22 September 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation – despite US terrorist listing being so far reserved for foreign groups only. President Trump’s executive order raises several important questions about freedom of speech, but it also triggers significant ripple effects in Europe, where the right-wing political parties are conveniently seizing the opportunity to reorient discussions on terrorism and violent extremism away from the far-right. This analysis gives some context on Antifa and on the events in the US surrounding its designation. It then looks at European politicians’ and governments’ reactions – and in several cases approval – toward Trump’s move. Finally, it examines possible consequences for counter-terrorism measures in Europe if the aforementioned approval and support of a designation spreads onto the continent: do claims stating It Can’t Happen Here actually hold?

What is Antifa?

Antifa is an umbrella term not only for the anti-fascist ideology but also for those against white supremacism, neo-Nazism, racism, sexism, and more generally opposing the far-right. Rather than being a fixed organisation, Antifa can be better described as a loose, decentralised collection of individuals, networks, and groups. Adherents support a wide range of tactics, from educational campaigns and online tracking of extremism to more direct street presence and counter-protesting at far-right events. In some cases, counter-mobilisations have evolved into violent clashes with opposing groups.

Antifa mobilisations are generally hard to track due to their informality and spontaneity – adepts show up and disappear when they want. Their actual presence is thus highly debated to serve interests on both sides of the political spectrum, which makes sense since Antifa is, in its essence, a movement that constructs its identity through opposition. Still, there have been recent reports of sightings in Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and more established local subgroups exist in a wide range of European countries, like France, Germany, Italy, or Spain.  

In the United States, the movement started gaining traction during the mid-2010s, almost simultaneously with President Trump’s first term. Despite some local self-identified Antifa subdivisions’ existence in certain cities (New York City, Sacramento, Atlanta), it has no unifying body nor an actual member register.

What happened in the US?

Since 2015, Antifa has been used as a catch-all term by the US Republicans to refer to liberal and left-wing activist groups, holding them responsible for several terror attacks, including against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), government facilities, and right-wing events. According to current data from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the only fatal attack in recent decades attributed to an Antifa extremist in the US occurred at a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, in 2020, when a self-identified Antifa supporter shot and killed a member of the far-right group Patriot Prayer.

Nonetheless, following the assassination of far-right activist Charlie Kirk, President Trump vowed to crack down on the “radical left” and put into action his 2020 promise to have Antifa – in his view “a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law” – designated as a domestic terror group by signing an executive order.

His executive order breaches legal due process for three reasons: (1) in the US, the President does not hold the authority to unilaterally list an organisation as terrorist; (2) no organisation in the US may be designated as a domestic terror organisation (DTO), at the risk of otherwise infringing on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment; and (3), Antifa has been repeatedly described as an ideology and not a group or organisation, which raises concerns about how one might be identified – and prosecuted – as a member, and risks legal instrumentalisation by authorities.

More broadly, this designation signals the intentions of the current Trump administration to drastically shift direction in national security efforts, thereby evolving from an initial focus on jihadi threats post-9/11 to Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism (REMVE) over the 2010s under the Biden administration, into cartels and organised crime and the crackdown on left-wing activism. As the US changes direction in its security priorities, it is important to reflect on whether this might be mirrored in Europe and what implications it may have. 

European reactions

On 26 September 2025, just four days after President Trump’s executive order, the Hungarian Official Gazette issued a decree establishing a new list of national terrorist organisations – previously non-existent – declaring Antifa and the allegedly linked German group Hammerbande as terror organisations, making it the first in Europe to directly follow Trump’s footsteps. Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Péter Szijjárto also sent a letter to the European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs Chief Kaja Kallas on 20 September, urging for the addition of “the Antifa movement to the EU list of terrorist organisations” and to “impos[e] the necessary restrictive measures on groups and individuals connected to it”.

Other calls have also been made towards the EU, with the Spanish far-right party Vox advocating for Brussels to consider Antifa a terrorist organisation and starting a petition. Poland’s main opposition party, the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS), called for Antifa’s designation and announced they were submitting a request to Prime Minister Donald Tusk for Poland to table an EU designation. 

A motion was also filed within the European Parliament, on 1 October by far-right Belgian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Tom Vandendriessche (Patriots for Europe, PfE), along with 79 other MEPs from 20 different countries, calling for a resolution to declare Antifa a terrorist organisation. This follows similar attempts by far-right MEPs in previous years, notably in 2023, to no avail. Parliamentary motions have no binding power on these issues – as the Council of the EU is the only European pillar with the authority to designate terrorist actors as such. Still, such motions may be used to set an agenda and influence subsequent debates. 

At the national level as well, a mobilisation against Antifa was noticed. Far-right Members of Parliament (MPs) from Belgium (Vlaams Belang, VB), Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD), and Austria (Freedom Party, FPÖ) called for their national governments to either ban Antifa or classify it as a terrorist organisation. 

The issue especially stirred up conflict among Belgian politicians following the government’s proposal to create a new ban on extremist organisations in the country. This proposal was first introduced last July in order to specifically dissolve Samidoun – a pro-Palestine group already listed as terrorist in Canada and the US, and banned in Germany. If it passes, this bill would effectively enable Belgian authorities to ban certain extremist and terrorist organisations beyond the ones recognised in the EU terrorist list. It would likely be applied to Antifa, especially following recent calls by members of the coalition government, including centre-right party Mouvement Réformateur.

In the Netherlands, MPs passed a motion to ban and designate Antifa as a terrorist organisation, with a majority of 76 out of 150 votes. Much like European parliamentary motions, it is non-binding, meaning it is now up to the Dutch government and the cabinet to make the decision to carry it through or not. In Germany, MP Alice Weidel (AfD) called for a national ban on Antifa, and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) also supports its national terrorist listing. 

Paving the way for an EU designation? Hungary as a likely designation sponsor

Judging from its proactivity and speed in national level measures and communications, Hungary is likely to also be the first EU member state to officially initiate the process to add Antifa to the EU’s terrorist list.

In its national decree, the Hungarian government lists a series of violent acts Antifa and its subdivisions are accused of to justify their prohibition and prosecution. Hungary’s case against Antifa is mainly based on events that occurred in other European countries, thus seemingly more based on the perception of an external threat than on actual domestic incidents – something not unusual among Central-Eastern European EU member states. This includes “recent” (no specific date was indicated) stabbings and attacks on politicians in front of the German parliament; violent attacks in 2023 and 2024 in the Toulouse area, in France; and several cases of Antifa actions and movements leading to open street violence in Italy in the past 15 years (with references to November 2014, February 2018, and November 2024 events happening respectively in Milan, Bologna, and Turin).

Accusations on Hungarian soil and targets reference six specific incidents that allegedly occurred over the past two years. The main issue relates to members of foreign groups having committed “extraordinarily violent” acts in Budapest in February 2023. The decree specifically mentions the case of an involved perpetrator whose criminal proceedings were suspended due to her mandate as an MEP, and refusal by other EU member states to extradite their accused citizens.

Other accusations against “groups linked to the ‘Antifa’ ideology” include, in 2024, damaging a Hungarian building in Berlin, breaking into the Honorary Hungarian Consulate in Venice, attacking the Hungarian House in Brussels and the Hungarian ambassador in Athens, as well as launching violent attacks against the Brussels office of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Hungary's largest private educational institution, in May 2025.

The (un)likelihood of Antifa’s EU designation

Even though the Hungarian decree details a large range of accusations, on a European level, Antifa has yet to be acknowledged as terrorist and remains absent from Europol’s Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT) Reports for the years 2023 and 2024. In 2024, only 6 percent (28 of 449) of the persons arrested for terrorism-related offences across EU member states were arrested for left-wing and anarchist terrorism. In comparison, 10 percent (47) were arrested for right-wing terrorism and 64 percent (289) on charges of jihadist terrorism. Overall, the left-wing terrorist threat has been officially described as relatively low, with rare injuries or deaths caused in comparison to the number of attacks completed. This suggests the EU’s perception of left-wing extremism likely differs from that of Hungary’s. 

Moreover, even if Europe were to expand – or switch – its security lens to left-wing violence, Antifa’s structure stays leaderless and heavily decentralised, meaning it could not, if taking the law at its word, be designated as a terrorist organisation like a well-structured group would. The European Commission’s 2022 detailed answer clearly highlights this stance, reminding MEPs that “‘Antifa’ is not an organisation but the collective name used by various autonomous and often informal groups”, and that the Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism thus does not apply: Antifa is inherently not a structured group and may not be prosecuted as such in the EU. While some MEPs assert that Antifa-related attacks are on the rise, its organisational system did not undergo any significant transformation needed for it to technically qualify as a terrorist group. Interestingly, a similar argument about the non-structured character could also be made against Terrorgram, a loose collection of online channels advocating for militant accelerationism, which was designated by the US, the UK, and Australia despite its non-organised nature. However, quite distinctively from Antifa, Terrorgram explicitly featured and called for terrorist attacks against a wide variety of targets aimed at sparking a race war. 

In practice, an argument could be made that more structured clandestine subgroups of Antifa are developing, as mentioned above, and that Antifa is therefore becoming structured enough for a designation. However, evidence is still lacking so far to suggest that these subgroups are planning premeditated attacks; violent action – when occurring – is overwhelmingly autonomous and not group-based. Since Article 3 of the EU Directive on combating terrorism states that the qualification of terrorist offences strictly applies to attacks that are “intentional”, it would be hard to designate Antifa as a terrorist organisation based on a minor number of lone wolf – often unplanned – attacks from alleged Antifa followers.

To some extent, the case of Ilaria Salis, who was arrested in Hungary for her alleged participation in assaults during a far-right event in Budapest, and was accused of being part of Antifa in 2023 – exemplifies this reality. Her arrest and her subsequent treatment in Hungary helped her win a seat in the European Parliament, which consequently led to her release from house arrest and a return to Italy. Since then, Hungarian authorities have been demanding to lift her parliamentary immunity with a view to prosecute her. However, both the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and, most importantly, the European Parliament itself voted to maintain her immunity on 23 September and 7 October, respectively. The EU protection granted to Salis indicates European reluctance to follow through with Hungary’s prosecution of so-called “radical left terrorists”. 

Even if Europe were to change its perspective on security to include far-left violence, the EU's actual designation process involves political and structural obstacles that make this unlikely.  Crucially, the European Council's 27 member states must unanimously approve a terrorist listing, which seems unlikely. Indeed, Hungary itself might turn into a liability to a designation due to its recent standing in the EU, which has been marred by allegations of rule-of-law violations, funding freezes due to concerns about judicial independence, and its ongoing use of vetoes on issues like sanctions on Russia or Ukraine's accession.

Conclusion

The US executive order against Antifa marks an unprecedented shift in security policing: it is the first time a domestic movement has been labelled as terrorist in the US. While this raises serious legal and democratic concerns, it also sets a precedent that far-right politicians may seek to emulate nationally and tentatively at the EU-level. Several have already made calls for national prohibitions of Antifa. Hungary has gone a step further by effectively listing the ideology as terrorist – potentially laying the groundwork for a push towards EU legislation.

However, given Hungary’s controversial track record, the technical rigour of the EU’s designation process, and the lack of institutional support for such a move, it remains unlikely that Antifa will be added to the EU terrorist list. The question now is whether mounting pressures from allies like the US or ongoing ideological shifts will be enough to override legal, procedural, and political resistance, including possibly at the national level. In theory, an Antifa designation in Europe is off the table; in practice, it also seems unlikely. But as Sinclair Lewis warned nearly a century ago in It Can’t Happen Here, legality is only as strong as the political will to defend it.

This article represents the views of the author(s) solely. ICCT is an independent foundation, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy unless clearly stated otherwise.

Photocredit: Matt Gush/Shutterstock