Steady State Statement Condemning
We write on behalf of The Steady State, a group of more than 330 former senior national security and law enforcement professionals. Our members have served under every President—Republican and Democrat—for decades. We are former Ambassadors, Inspectors General, Flag Officers, CIA Chiefs of Station, FBI Special Agents, Defense and Homeland Security officials, and senior Intelligence Officers and diplomats from across the national security enterprise. Collectively, we have devoted our careers to defending the Constitution and safeguarding American democracy.
Today, we express deep alarm at the recent Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum seeking to designate “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization and to dramatically expand government surveillance and investigative powers against Americans based on ideology and association. We urge the administration to rescind these measures and recommit to the constitutional principles that have guided this nation through crisis and controversy alike.
The Constitution and longstanding American law draw a sharp line between punishing criminal conduct and policing beliefs. The Justice Department and FBI may investigate crimes—arson, conspiracy, violence—but not constitutionally protected views or associations. The President’s order erases that distinction, treating a diffuse, decentralized ideology—anti-fascism—as if it were a formal organization subject to designation and criminalization. No federal statute grants the president authority to designate domestic groups or movements as terrorist organizations.
At the heart of American democracy is the First Amendment. Yet these directives blur the line between protest and riot, repeatedly invoking “radicalization,” “organizing,” and “advocacy” alongside violent crimes. Such framing risks casting lawful dissent as inherently suspect, chilling free expression, and deterring civic participation. Strong criticism of government—however unpopular—is protected unless it crosses into incitement or actual lawless action.
These directives must also be seen in context: they are not isolated missteps but part of a broader erosion of constitutional norms. Authoritarian systems frequently blur the line between dissent and extremism, branding opponents as threats in order to justify expanded state control. As a substantial body of research on authoritarianism makes clear, this tactic—criminalizing ideology and delegitimizing dissent—is a hallmark of democratic backsliding. By treating ideology itself as criminal, the EO and PM align with this pattern—delegitimizing protest, chilling speech, and casting civic participation as inherently suspect. The danger lies not only in the immediate overreach but also in the normalization of state power directed against lawful dissent, a signal that the foundations of American democracy itself are under threat.
The memorandum’s language is dangerously broad, calling for scrutiny of “networks” and “organizations” that may “foment political violence,” and even of “potential” crimes. This pre-crime approach invites surveillance and targeting based not on evidence of criminal acts but on associations, ideologies, or mere suspicion. American history teaches that such preventive policing sweeps up bystanders, political opponents, and peaceful activists, eroding due process and equal protection.
Equally troubling is the use of vague ideological “indicia,” including “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” These undefined categories give sweeping discretion to enforcers. Advocacy for LGBTQ rights, criticism of government policy, or support for progressive reforms could easily be miscast as falling within them—even though such advocacy is protected by the Constitution.
Labeling beliefs—as opposed to actions—as suspicious or criminal is antithetical to the First Amendment and betrays American pluralism. The invocation of “traditional American values” is especially concerning, given its vagueness and the risk it will be used as a proxy for politically motivated targeting of those who diverge from the administration’s ideological agenda. Democracy is not preserved by criminalizing dissent but by defending the right to express, debate, and organize around varied beliefs.
Above all, the attempt to treat “Antifa”—a non-hierarchical movement of ideas—as an “organization” is a legal fiction. Ideas cannot be dismantled like criminal enterprises. Suppressing beliefs is both futile and corrosive to democracy.
We urge the administration to rescind these measures and commit to the constitutional principles that have guided this nation through crisis and controversy alike. Safeguarding our democracy requires using the tools of law enforcement to prevent and punish real violence—not to surveil, prosecute or persecute Americans.