Antifa: Welcome To The Big Leagues
“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em…Know when to fold ’em” (The Gambler by Kenny Rogers)
The law is a funny thing. Though “domestic terrorism” is defined in 18 U.S. Code §2331(5), there is no statute under which a person can be charged for being one. In short, the law defines what a domestic terrorist is, but does not provide any penalties for being one.
Since there is no statute that a person can be charged under for being a Domestic Terrorist, the government has – until now – charged ‘domestic terrorists’ with normal crimes like murder, attempted murder, vandalism, etc. That changed on October 15, 2025 when the DOJ, for the first time, charged two Antifa members who took part in an attack on an ICE facility with “Providing Material Support To Terrorists.”
The indictment charges Cameron Arnold[1] and Zachary Evetts each with 3 counts of attempted murder of a federal official (18 U.S. Code 1114(a)) and 3 counts of discharging a firearm in the furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S. Code 924(c)). Those are pretty serious charges in-and-of-themselves. However, it gets much more serious for these two wannabe Rambos because those statutes are also “predicate acts”[2] for charging people under 18 U.S. Code §2339A (Providing Material Support to Terrorist). As a result, the DOJ also charged both these criminal masterminds with Providing Material Support to Terrorists.
But, but, but you say, you need a terrorist to provide support to before one can be charged with providing material support to terrorists, and since there is no law under which these two can be charged with terrorism, they cannot be charged with providing material support to themselves as terrorist.
Throttle it back Maverick.
Arnold and Evetts, as well as the other nine members of their Antifa cell that attacked the ICE facility meet the definition of ‘domestic terrorists’ set forth in 18 USC §2331(5). The lack of a statute that a domestic terrorist can be charged under as a terrorist does not make them any less a terrorist under the law…just a terrorist who cannot be charged as a terrorist. Yes, I know it is strange, but so too are most of our senators and representatives who make our laws…we get what we elect.
Under §2339A a person provides material support to terrorists whenever the person who the support was provided to commits one or more of the statute’s predicate acts. In other words, the person committing the crime does not have to be a designated terrorist in order for a person to be charged with providing material support to a terrorist. In fact, the person the support was provided to does not even have to commit a crime that is defined as a terrorist act. Nope. All that is required is for the person the support was provided to commits one or more of the predicate acts set forth in §2339A.
Both Arnold and Evetts are each charged with three counts of violating 18 U.S. Code §§1114(a)(attempted murder of a federal official) and 924(c)(discharging a firearm) – both of which are predicate acts. Therefore, Arnold and Evetts are liable for providing material support to terrorists.
If you think that is convoluted, strap yourself in because it gets even more convoluted.
The next question I think most people have, is ok, so you can provide material support to domestic terrorists even though domestic terrorists cannot be charged as terrorists. However, what terrorists did these two rocket scientists provide “material support to?” The answer is… they provided material support to themselves.
Yep, the government is arguing that providing material support to yourself is a violation of §2339A, a position that is supported by the language of the statute. Like I said, the law is a funny thing, though I doubt Arnold and Evetts are laughing.
A conviction for providing material support to terrorists carries a maximum sentence of 15 years, which is five years less than the maximum sentence for attempted murder under 18 U.S. Code §1114 that both Arnold and Evetts are also charged with. So what’s the purpose of the charge of material support to terrorists? Twofold I think.
First, it adds to the severity of the crime. Attempted murder is bad, attempted murder as part of a terrorist act is very bad. I think a judge is likely to forego the whole leniency thingy if they’re convicted of providing material support to terrorists and impose significantly more jail time than he normally would if they were convicted of attempted murder alone.
Second, it sends a message to all Antifa members that the rules have changed. No longer will the government treat Antifa members as run of the mill criminals. Instead the DOJ is going to charge them under both anti-terrorist laws (whenever they can) as well as run of the mill criminal laws. Of more import, I believe the DOJ will soon be charging Antifa members under “conspiracy” law.
A conspiracy is simply “an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal.” Many conspiracy statutes, like 18 U.S. Code §371 don’t even require an unlawful act to occur – just the intent to engage in a crime and usually at least one overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the act in furtherance of the conspiracy can be a completely lawful act in-and-of-itself.[3]
As one of my law school professors explained, under conspiracy law, ‘the left hand does not need to know what the right hand is doing.’ What this means is that a member of a conspiracy does not have to be present at the site of a specific illegal act, nor do they have to even know what specific crime is going to be committed in furtherance of the conspiracy’s goals. Merely being a member of the conspiracy who participated in the furtherance of the conspiracy’s unlawful goals in some way is sufficient.
In addition to run of the mill conspiracy statutes like 18 U.S. Code §371, the federal government can, and I believe likely will, use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to go after Antifa.[4]
RICO is a conspiracy statute on steroids with teeth bigger than the those of the shark in Jaws. For example, a conspiracy conviction under §371carris a maximum prison sentence of five years and fines. A RICO conviction carries a maximum 20 year prison sentence (life in some rare instances), fines and the very real possibility of forfeiture of personal funds and property.
Given the new rules, It would behoove Antifa members, or at least their leaders, to seriously consider relocating to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.
I understand Cuba has great beaches and a lot of classic cars.
[1] Surprise, Arnold also goes by the name “Autumn Hill.”
[2] Predicate offenses are underlying crimes required to be committed before a statute such as 18 U.S. Code § 2339A can be charged.
[3]For example, if the conspiracy was to firebomb a federal facility, then drawing maps of the outside of the facility to be used in the firebombing would be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the drawing of the maps in-and-of-itself is not illegal.
[4] Unlike many conspiracy statutes, RICO does require at least two instances of “racketeering activity” (predicate acts that are crimes) to be committed in furtherance of the “enterprise’s” goal within 10 years of each other before the statute is triggered.