Last week, the Trump administration sent a memo to Oregon Gov. Kotek authorizing the deployment of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for 60 days. At the same time, the administration has also named antifa, the anti-fascist political movement, as a domestic terrorist organization. What does action mean for the political movement and how do protests happening now compare to other parts of the world and the history of the U.S.? To answer these question and more, we’ll hear from Shane Burley, a Portland-based writer and filmmaker who is author of the book, “Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It.” He is also the editor of “No Pasaran!: Antifascist Dispatches from a World in Crisis.”
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. When the Trump administration authorized the deployment of members of the Oregon National Guard in Portland about a week-and-a-half ago, it overshadowed an earlier announcement by the president. A week before, he had named antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. But what is antifa and what does all of this mean for the broader anti-fascist movement?
Shane Burley joins us to answer those questions and more. He is a Portland-based writer and filmmaker, and the author of the books “Fascism Today” and “Safety Through Solidarity.” Shane, welcome back.
Shane Burley: Thanks for having me back.
Miller: You’ve written a lot about fascism and anti-fascist movements. I want to start with just the word antifa. How do you describe antifa right now?
Burley: The word antifa has always meant a certain kind of militant anti-fascist organizing. It developed in the ‘80s in Germany, France, UK, up into the ‘90s and early 2000s in the U.S. with a number of different organizations that had taken on this model. And the way we use it contemporarily is a little bit different. We often project it onto any anti-fascist social movement and traditionally it was more restricted than that. Because lots of different movements, whether they be the labor movement, the women’s movement or the anti-war movement, all have an element of anti-fascism to them.
Miller: Do you consider antifa, at this point in the U.S., to be a cohesive group or even a kind of loosely connected network, or a catch-all term that refers to a broad movement or ideology?
Burley: No, I don’t think it refers to a coherent sort of individual group, series of groups, networks. There are not an incredible number of “antifa organizations.” The way that the term is most often used is by the right to paint a broad brush of left-wing social movements.
The idea of anti-fascism, opposition to fascism, and the idea that there should be community-based solutions to far-right violence, is a broad idea. But that’s a little bit different than antifa specifically and the way that the right uses it.
Miller: But I wonder if it’s not just the way the right uses it because it’s my assumption – I want to run this by you and see if you agree – that if you went through a crowd of thousands of people in Portland at a “No Kings” rally not that long ago and asked everybody, “are you antifa,” my guess is that many or maybe most folks would say, “no.” And if you said, “are you anti-fascist,” most would say, “yes.” First of all, do you agree with that?
Burley: Oh, absolutely. I think that is exactly how people would generally answer that question, understanding that antifa tends to mean a certain kind of form of organizing that someone may or may not be a part of. But anti-fascism is something that the majority of Americans generally agree with.
Miller: How much then are we talking about tactics that people are willing to engage in, as opposed to what they maybe all oppose?
Burley: I think that that could be largely true. The term antifa was often used for what was called “militant anti-fascist organizing,” which might have meant that there might be defensive actions or they might block far right organizers. And again, when that term was used, it was specifically by neo-Nazi groups, far right groups, Proud Boys, basically groups that weren’t involved with the state. They weren’t state agents in some way.
But then again, like we talked about earlier, anti-fascism has a whole range of tactics, from civil disobedience to workplace strikes to all kinds of things. So I think it’s that broader understanding that unites more people.
Miller: This is all important background given the president’s recent announcement. So what does the designation of “Antifa,” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” actually mean?
Burley: Well, right now it doesn’t mean anything. There really isn’t a designation for “domestic terrorist organization.” The idea of designating a terrorist organization is very specific to foreign organizations, organizations in other countries or extralegal actors overseas. So this idea of designating a “domestic” terrorist organization is little more than agitprop [agitation propaganda].
That being said, this can be used as justification, for example, for police departments to use excessive force, saying, “oh, we’re fighting terrorists” or “that’s what the threat is.” There’s been examples of terrorism enhancements in different court cases. A good example of this is earlier in Oregon’s history in the early 2000s. It was called “the green scare,” where environmental activists, some of whom had been convicted for property destruction or vandalism, had terrorism enhancements expanding their sentences. So there’s an excellent example of it in the recent past.
So there can be real consequences, but it’s not a legal category that is generally understood. That being said, if they wanted to push legislation that would make it as such and have it mirror what happens to foreign terrorist organizations, I mean, that could be anything. It could lead to people’s arrest. It could lead to freezing of bank accounts without clear evidence. There’s all kinds of problems that could happen if that was the road they went down.
Miller: In the summer of 2018, the Oregon State Police and the FBI’s Portland Field Office conducted a joint investigation looking into the group Rose City Antifa. It’s unclear what happened to that investigation, but do you know how much the government has already been investigating various antifa groups, local groups particularly?
Burley: There’s been a long history of investigations of these groups. In the 1990s, an organization called Anti-Racist Action was very active in Oregon, particularly at a time when there was a peak of far right skinhead violence and there were police anti-gang task forces that engaged in pretty aggressive investigations, some would say, targeting activists.
That has continued up to the day. This is not unlike various levels of state investigations of left-wing radical or socialist groups. This is happening for labor unions. It’s happening for the environmental movement. So I don’t see the sort of investigation of Rose City Antifa as anything particularly different there. But one of the problems is that they come in with an outsized idea of what these groups are and who these people are and what they’re doing. And when reality doesn’t meet that, oftentimes, you just see these investigations peter out. And I think, largely, that’s what happened with their investigation of Rose City Antifa. It was built around a sort of right-wing caricature of what these organizations are.
Miller: I want to turn more squarely to what’s been happening over the last week-and-a-half. What have you seen at recent ICE building protests, either this week or going back to the beginning of the summer?
Burley: Obviously, there have been sort of anti-ICE or countering-ICE demonstrations happening all around the country. We saw them really large in Los Angeles. Many are built around a rapid response model of trying to show up and document or share your rights information with people that are actually being arrested or detained by ICE.
In Portland, there was a history of an anti-ICE encampment in 2018, and this is part of the Occupy ICE movement. That encampment basically became the model this year as well. So we’ve seen, I think, just in the area of 120 days of consistent protest at the ICE processing facility. So there’s an encampment there. It’s got a medical tent and kind of food support tent, basically infrastructure to support people.
And those protests have started to grow with the threat of bringing in National Guard troops. So we’ve seen larger waves of nonviolent demonstrations, people occupying the space with signs, chants, things like that. And what I’ve also seen down there is essentially federal officers escalating violence. So, for example, [there are] many situations in which they will open the gates at the facility, come out, start spraying people with chemical agents, hitting them with shields or doing kind of snatch and grab missions to arrest people. And it’s unclear what they’re being arrested for.
So the tension there has just sort of increased. And ICE has been using various chemical weapons like tear gas, pepper spray, things like that that affect everybody in the surrounding neighborhood too. So it’s become a more escalated situation from ICE response.
Miller: One thing the governor, the Portland Police chief and plenty of other elected officials at local and state levels have been saying, for the last week-and-a-half, is the phrase “don’t take the bait,” meaning don’t respond to federal provocation or maybe even violence from federal officials. How has that message landed to people you’ve talked to?
Burley: I think it’s just very disconnected from the experience of people who are actively involved in the protest movement. On the one hand, it’s important to notice that these protests actually do have an effect. They dissuade the influx of troops in some cases. It creates a kind of unity amongst the community against these forces. And we have to remember that they’re coming in, not because of our provocation, but because of Trump’s administrative goals and because of the image they’re creating about “Antifa” or protesters, and that kind of thing.
Their justification for coming in, their justifications for using force are based on falsehoods. So I don’t like the idea that it’s projecting this responsibility back on the protesters. If only we behave better, only if you don’t do these sorts of things, you wouldn’t be subject to violence. They wouldn’t be coming in. They wouldn’t be terrorizing the community. That just simply hasn’t proven true. So I think there ends up being a disconnect from the people that are seeing it firsthand and those commenting on it.
Miller: Separate from everything you’ve just been saying, that there are documented cases where people who are protesting the administration have resorted to violence or trying to damage the ICE building, for example – those are separate questions about human violence or damage to property. For people who are engaging in that, what’s their theory of change or their idea of how those actions – small in number and not at all the norm, but still a reality – [are] going to achieve their aims?
Burley: It’s hard to say with a uniform point because we’re talking about disparate groups of people with different ideas. I think there’s a general consensus that showing discontent, pushing back on their presence, not giving free access to the streets or basically unopposed access to the streets, that that will raise the cost of participation and that will change the calculus on some level. So the more people that come out, the more people who aren’t gonna participate in their ICE deportations, the more people that will make it difficult, the harder and the more expensive it will be, the fewer ICE agents will want to come, that kind of thing that’ll just make it a more fundamentally difficult thing.
The second piece of this though is also that getting people involved in activism of really any type – it can be true of pretty much any kind of strategy – gets them involved in building this counter-community. [It becomes] a different way of organizing a community that is at odds with the divisive nature that Trump is trying to run things. So building mutual aid tents, connecting with people, giving support networks. It’s the same protest movements that are out in front of the ICE building that are offering mutual aid support to families of folks who have been arrested and are deported by ICE. So it ends up being a number of those things together.
Miller: What are you expecting to happen if, let’s say that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals puts a hold on the Federal Judge Karin Immergut’s stay and temporary restraining order, and says, “yes, for the time being, federalized National Guard troops from whatever state can come to Portland, can form a perimeter outside the ICE building.” What are you expecting would follow?
Burley: I think we already saw an example of this in 2020. You saw a protest movement against police violence that had started to wane a bit. Then federal officers were brought in, at Trump’s command. It basically reinvigorated it and escalated it, brought it around different parts of the city, that kind of thing. So I think the exact same thing is true here.
The difference being that it feels so egregious to most Portlanders and Oregonians. It feels like such an invasion, coming from a president that’s so at odds with some of their basic ethical values, that it will likely be the impetus to bring out thousands more people into it and really escalate the situation. So I think that that’s ultimately what’s happening here. That’s ultimately what’s happening in Chicago. That will basically show, very clearly, what a lack of organized opposition allows for. It allows for federal officers, controlled by the president, to come in and basically run roughshod over the city.
Miller: One notable difference between Portland protests in 2020 that you’re referencing and now, in addition to just the size and scale of them – so far there’s no comparison – is location. In 2020, the protests were focused downtown where police headquarters, and county and federal courthouses are all based, the Justice Center. This year, obviously protests have been a couple miles to the south at the ICE building. Do you think that might change if federal troops are sent to, say, the federal courthouse?
Burley: It’s an interesting question. I suspect it will not change. I think they will stay at the Macadam Street location of ICE. It ends up being not just a practical center, where ICE processing happens, but it’s sort of a symbol of ICE nationally. And having that kind of focal point ends up being important for building that up, particularly if they have an encampment, where people are gonna be staying for long periods of time. The Justice Center just doesn’t have the same sort of role in our understanding of the problem.
Miller: How do you think about the fact that some righ–wing streamers have been allowed into the ICE building and onto the roof, and have been seemingly embraced, or at the very least allowed to be there, when other news organizations have not?
Burley: Yeah, I’ve seen this. I’ve seen ICE agents sort of collaborating with right-wing YouTubers and things like that. It undermines the notion that the ICE officers and that the ICE facility is a politically neutral part of the American government that’s there to support people broadly. I mean, that’s clearly not true.
You have far-right streamers, far-right online personalities collaborating directly with agents of the state, the same ones that are executing deportation arrests and are being witnessed basically violently attacking protesters. It seems like it basically ascribes political motivation to the ICE facility and agents. It shows very clearly where they fall on this, and that this isn’t just about neutral policing or about keeping law and order. It’s about a politically motivated attack.
Miller: Shane, thanks very much.
Burley: Thanks so much.
Miller: Shane Burley is a Portland-based writer and filmmaker and the author of the books “Fascism Today” and “Safety Through Solidarity.”
“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.
