9-25-25: Earlier this week, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order declaring “Antifa” to be a “Domestic Terrorist Organization,” accompanied by an avowal to “crush” what the White House calls “radical left violence.” ‘Antifa’ is an ideology, meaning anti-fascist, not a formal group, and “domestic terrorist organization” is not an official legal designation. So what is going on? What does this new order authorize, and who will it affect?
https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/trump-designates-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization/?emci=31359477-389a-f011-b485-6045bda9d96b&emdi=903bd9ec-3d9a-f011-b485-6045bda9d96b&ceid=2461541%22+%5ct+%22_blank
By any standard a Terrorist is someone who threatens violence to terrify others. This follows with the assumption that they are threatening the lives of innocent people…and this should justify preempting them in any way from harming someone…regardless of the actual intent of the individual or group that has not been proved. Such an assumption that proof is self-evident has led to the murder of more innocent men, women, children, and infants as collateral damage than are lost in actual wars.
ChatGPT response to my question, ‘Is there any estimate of the number of innocent people killed who were suspected of being a terrorist?” Yes, but the answer depends greatly on what you mean by “suspected terrorists.”
There is no reliable global count of all innocent people killed because they were wrongly identified as terrorists. Governments, militaries, intelligence agencies, insurgent groups, and researchers all use different definitions, and many cases remain disputed.
Some of the best-studied examples come from the U.S. “War on Terror” after 2001:
Independent researchers estimate that U.S. drone strikes alone killed between roughly 836 and 2,231 civilians across Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan.
The U.S. government’s own estimates have generally been much lower. For example, the Obama administration reported 64–116 civilian deaths outside active war zones from 2009–2015, while independent organizations reported substantially higher figures.
The monitoring group Airwars estimated that U.S. airstrikes since 9/11 may have killed at least 22,000 civilians and perhaps as many as 48,000, although not all of these people were specifically targeted as suspected terrorists; many were collateral casualties during broader military campaigns.
A particularly important issue is classification. Researchers and journalists have documented cases in which military-age males killed in strike zones were initially counted as militants unless evidence later emerged proving they were civilians. Critics argue this practice may have caused innocent people to be classified as terrorists after their deaths.
There are also documented cases where specific individuals were wrongly identified as terrorists. One well-known example occurred in Kabul in 2021 when a U.S. drone strike killed 10 civilians, including 7 children, after operators mistakenly believed the target was associated with ISIS-K. The Pentagon later acknowledged the error.
More broadly, if you include all countries conducting counterterrorism operations—not just the United States—the number of innocent people killed while being suspected of terrorism is almost certainly in the tens of thousands, and some researchers would argue much higher. However, no universally accepted global estimate exists.
One of the enduring challenges is that terrorism is not merely a criminal category; it is also a political label. Throughout history, governments have sometimes classified dissidents, insurgents, separatists, or entire communities as “terrorists,” while opponents have disputed those designations. That makes producing a precise worldwide body count extraordinarily difficult.
From a democracy and governance perspective, this issue highlights the tension between two principles:
Protecting society from genuine terrorist threats. Preserving the rule of law and the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. When governments lean too far toward the second principle’s opposite—treating people as terrorists first and requiring proof of innocence later—the risk of wrongful killings rises substantially.
A precise count of Trump using the word terrorist is surprisingly difficult to produce because there is no complete, searchable database of every speech, interview, rally, social media post, press conference, and official statement by President Trump from 2017–2021 and again from 2025–present.
However, analyses of his speeches and public statements indicate that Trump has used the words “terrorism,” “terrorist,” or “terrorists” many hundreds, and likely well over a thousand times across both presidencies. During his first term he made counterterrorism, ISIS, border security, and later domestic extremism recurring themes of speeches and remarks.
What’s more interesting is that the term is not always used in connection with religious extremism. Trump has frequently broadened the term to include:
1. Drug cartels (“narco-terrorists”)
2. Transnational gangs
3. Human trafficking organizations
4. Domestic extremist groups
5. Antifa
6. Violence against law enforcement
7. Border-related criminal organizations
Referring to Mexican drug cartels as “narco-terrorists.” Trump and members of his administration have repeatedly used this phrase to describe cartel violence.
Describing transnational gangs as terrorists. Groups such as MS-13 have often been characterized as terrorist-like organizations threatening public safety.
Calling for Antifa to be treated as a terrorist organization. Trump publicly argued that Antifa should be designated a terrorist group.
Describing attacks on police officers as domestic terrorism. He has used terrorism language in response to violent attacks on law enforcement.
Characterizing cartel activity at the southern border as terrorism. This framing links organized criminal violence to national security concerns.
Using “terrorist” to describe violent anarchist groups. In various remarks he has grouped anarchist movements with domestic terror threats.
Referring to fentanyl trafficking networks as terror-linked organizations. Recent administration documents have connected narcotics trafficking to terrorism frameworks.
Labeling violent political extremists as domestic terrorists. This has included rhetoric directed primarily at left-wing extremist actors.
Describing organized criminal organizations as terrorist enterprises. This usage emphasizes coercion and fear rather than ideology.
Using terrorism language in relation to threats against government institutions and public order. His rhetoric has sometimes applied the term broadly beyond traditional religiously motivated violence.
One important observation is that Trump’s use of “terrorism” has evolved. During the 2016 campaign and early first term, he most often connected the term to ISIS and Islamist extremism. In recent years, his rhetoric has increasingly emphasized cartels, gangs, fentanyl traffickers, and domestic political violence.
For a more rigorous answer, I can do a deeper search through presidential archives, rally transcripts, Truth Social posts, and White House statements to estimate: how many times Trump used “terrorism/terrorist” in each presidency, how those uses break down by category (Islamist, domestic, cartel, gang, Antifa, etc.), and provide the actual top 10 verbatim quotations with dates and sources
I did some digging, and there is a challenge: there is no searchable database that counts every use of the words “terrorism,” “terrorist,” or “terrorists” across all Trump speeches, interviews, rallies, Truth Social posts, and White House statements. So any number would be an estimate rather than an official count.
Based on White House archives, campaign speeches, media interviews, and social media posts, I would estimate that Trump has used those terms well over 1,000 times since entering national politics in 2015, and probably several hundred times during his second presidency alone. The term has become a recurring part of his vocabulary for describing threats to public order, not just religious extremism.
Some of the most notable non-Islamist uses of “terrorist” or “terrorism”
1. Antifa as a “major terrorist organization”
“I am designating ANTIFA … as a major terrorist organization.”
This may be the clearest example of Trump applying the terrorism label to a domestic political movement rather than a religious extremist group.
2. Antifa as a domestic terrorist threat
Trump’s White House later described Antifa as using “violence and terrorism” and characterized its activities as “domestic terrorism.”
3. The 2020 tweet
“The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.”
This was one of his most widely quoted uses of the term during the George Floyd protests.
4. MS-13 and gang violence
Trump repeatedly described MS-13 as spreading “violence, fear and suffering” and frequently placed it in the same rhetorical category as terrorist organizations.
5. Drug cartels as “narco-terrorists”
His administrations increasingly characterized major cartels as terrorist or narco-terrorist organizations. This framing became especially prominent during his second term.
6. Cartels as national-security threats
Trump has argued that cartels use fear and coercion comparable to terrorism and should be treated as such.
7. Violence against police as terrorism: Trump has repeatedly referred to attacks on law-enforcement officers as acts of domestic terrorism.
8. Anarchist groups as terrorists: His rhetoric frequently grouped violent anarchist activists with terrorist threats.
9. Fentanyl-trafficking networks as terror-linked organizations: Recent administration actions have increasingly merged counterterrorism and counternarcotics language.
10. Political violence generally: Trump has often broadened the term “terrorism” to include organized political violence, intimidation, and coercion even when no religious ideology was involved.
An interesting pattern: If you compare Trump’s first campaign in 2015–2016 with his rhetoric today, there is a noticeable shift:
Most common targets of terrorism language
2015- 2018 ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Islamist extremism
2019 -2021 Antifa, anarchists, MS-13, domestic unrest
2025- 2026 Cartels, narco-terrorists, Antifa, transnational gangs, fentanyl networks
In other words, the word “terrorism” in Trump’s rhetoric has expanded from primarily describing religiously motivated violence to describing a much broader set of actors, including criminal organizations, gangs, and political movements.
An even more interesting question may be: How has the definition of terrorism changed in political discourse since 9/11? Trump is not alone in broadening the term; many governments have increasingly applied it to gangs, cartels, cyber actors, and domestic extremist movements. That broader evolution is worth examining because definitions of terrorism often shape public policy, civil liberties, and government powers.
Ask your favorite AI what can be done to make things better? The answer ChatGPT gave me was very sane and obvious... None of which are being proposed, or even possible to achieve if they were. Prepare for things getting worse... As a Boy Scout, "Be prepared" was a great moto. Because the concept of prevention or 'uniting for good' is simply un-American.
No comments:
Post a Comment