Power & Pushback: Anti-ICE protesters convicted on terrorism charges in a possible sign of things to come 

Last week, a federal jury convicted eight protesters on terrorism charges in a monumental trial that could have far-reaching implications on the U.S. government’s ability to crack down on activism.

The defendants were connected to a July 4th protest at the Prairieland ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, where fireworks were shot off and a police officer was shot and wounded.

The case marked the first time that the federal government used material support for terrorism charges against activists that they claimed to be members of “Antifa.”

“It probably will embolden them to perhaps offer additional characterization of entities or groups … animated by some sort of anti-administration agenda as some species of Antifa,” said Tom Brzozowski, former counsel for domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, told the Texas Observer.

Xavier de Janon, an attorney with the People’s Law Collective who has provided legal assistance to the DFW Support Committee and one of the defendant’s attorneys, explained that Antifa component in an interview with Democracy Now:

So, what we heard from the federal government since July 4th, 2025, is descriptions that are similar to what we’re hearing in Minneapolis, in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in Portland and now in Vermont, that people who are standing up for immigrants are terrorists, are antifa, are masked villains, are wearing black to be disguised and never been found. During the trial, we heard repeatedly the reference to something they call the “North Texas Antifa Cell.” The Department of Justice still says this is a thing. But then we heard from cooperating defendants explaining that no such thing exists, that they didn’t even know that they were a part of antifa to begin with, as the government alleges.

“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities — not under President Trump,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi after the decision was announced. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”

The material support charges brought against the activists are a particularly concerning aspect of the verdict.

Maricela Rueda, and her husband Daniel Sanchez Estrada, were convicted of conspiracy to conceal documents, but the entire charge was based around the movement of a box containing radical zines.

Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote about this “guilt by literature” component in The Intercept after the charges were filed last fall.

“At what point does a literary collection or newspaper subscription become prosecutorial evidence under the Trump administration’s logic?,” wrote Stern. “Essentially, whenever it’s convenient. The vagueness is a feature, not a bug. When people don’t know which political materials might later be deemed evidence of criminality, the safest course is to avoid engaging with controversial ideas altogether.”

“The slippery slope from anarchist zines to conventional journalism isn’t hypothetical, and we’re already sliding fast,” he added. “Journalist Mario Guevara can tell you that from El Salvador, where he was deported in a clear case of retaliation for livestreaming a No Kings protest. So can Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk, as she awaits deportation proceedings for co-writing an opinion piece critical of Israel’s wars that the administration considers evidence of support for terrorism.”

The DFW Support Committee, a coalition supporting the protesters posted a statement on the decision:

Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: this is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top.

The state never had a case. The state only has its intimidation, torture, and suppression. The federal government came out in force: using repression, terrorism charges, home raids, multi-million dollar bails, and torturous jail conditions.

What they wanted to do was to isolate the defendants, to control the public narrative. But people came together, spoke out, fought back, and set the tone for what’s to come.

There will be post-trial motions and appeals are expected. There are also state charges pending.

“We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges,” notes the DFW Support Committee. “What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up.”

Dr. Badar Khan Suri

Dr. Badar Khan Suri, who was arrested and detained for six weeks over his advocacy for Palestinian rights, is asking the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize prior court rulings that ordered him released on bail.

Last week, Suri headed back to court to fight the Trump administration’s effort to re-detain him. The only justification for his arrest is seemingly his support for Palestine and his family’s connections to Gaza.

“When I came to America to study how governments descend into authoritarianism, I could never have expected to be living the very research I came here to do, and yet today marks exactly one year since I was brutally taken from my family and unjustly imprisoned by the U.S. government for voicing my opposition to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza,” said Suri in a statement. “I’m grateful to be standing here as a free man, but terrified that it could be taken away from me at any moment. I am asking the Fourth Circuit to affirm what every American schoolchild is taught, that in this country, you cannot be thrown in prison for speaking truth to power.”

“Courts have always been an important check on unlawful government attempts to silence and retaliate against people for their  speech, and Dr. Suri’s case should be no different. The Trump administration is trying to silence speech it doesn’t agree with by targeting people like Dr. Suri and Mahmoud Khalil, but ideas are not illegal,” said Geri Greenspan, senior staff attorney with ACLU of Virginia. “Americans don’t want to live in a country where the federal government can lock people up just because it doesn’t like their views.”

The group details Suri’s ordeal, and his current legal fight, on its website:

The Trump administration continues to try to strip Dr. Suri’s freedom despite losing in district court and already being denied a stay by the appeals court.

In its appeal, the administration takes a narrow view of the courts’ habeas jurisdiction, arguing that because it quickly swept Dr. Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court does not have jurisdiction to hear his petition. Instead, it argues that his case should be handled by a court in Texas. It also argues that that no federal court has authority to review the constitutionality of Dr. Suri’s detention until the executive branch finishes its own administrative immigration process, which can take months or years.

The government’s argument essentially boils down to the sweeping assertion that it can use immigration laws to silence speech it dislikes and detain noncitizens indefinitely because of their family’s supposed associations.

Further Reading

• CBC: Last detainee from Trump’s 2025 Gaza war protest crackdown freed after a year
• Austin Chronicle: Mahmoud Khalil Champions Immigrant Rights at SXSW
• ACLU: Georgetown Scholar Illegally Detained for His Speech Returns to Court
• KPBS: San Diego City Council adopts controversial definition of antisemitism
• Common Dreams: The Correct Solution to Antisemitism Is to Call for BDS Against Israel