The designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group: strategic implications and threats to freedom of expression

The criminalization of protests: when demonstrating becomes terrorism

The Trump administration has sent a clear message: protesting is terrorism. This is the impression conveyed through a series of recent actions, culminating last week in the designation of the British group [Palestine Action](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics-explained/palestine-action-kneecap-yvette-cooper-terrorism-b2776728.html) as a terrorist organization.

The designation as a terrorist group

The Trump administration has added Palestine Action and two other European entities to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) list, a category created after the September 11, 2001 attacks. This designation allows the administration to impose economic sanctions on the group and all persons associated with it, freezing their assets held in the United States and prohibiting them from engaging in any financial transactions with any U.S. actor. In addition to financial transactions, the designation prohibits all persons in the United States from interacting with the group in ways vaguely defined as "material support" or "services." Those who violate this prohibition may be subject to civil or criminal penalties or may themselves be added to the SDGT list.

The definition of illegal "support"

The group Palestine Action, which organizes "direct action" protests often including acts of vandalism, claims to work to end "global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime." The United Kingdom banned Palestine Action as a terrorist organization last year, citing in particular an incident in 2024 in which members entered a military base and sprayed red paint on a pair of planes. Since the ban took effect, hundreds of people in the United Kingdom have been arrested simply for holding signs in support of the group.

The protection of the First Amendment

In theory, U.S. law has an important feature not present in the UK system: First Amendment protection for freedom of speech and association. In the announcement designating Palestine Action as "terrorist," the Trump administration reiterated that "constitutionally protected activities" would not result in sanctions. However, this reassurance is little comfort to those who pay attention to how the U.S. government has long eroded the scope of the First Amendment in the name of fighting "terrorism." The Supreme Court has ruled that assisting a designated group in resolving its disputes peacefully amounts to criminal "support" for terrorism; the Treasury Department has suggested that hosting the leaders of a designated group for peaceful dialogue could constitute prohibited "support" for terrorism; and, under the Trump administration, non-citizen students and scholars like Mahmoud Khalil have faced detentions and threats of deportation for peaceful protests and expressions of opinion that the administration has described as support for terrorism.

The definition of "terrorism"

The Trump administration describes Palestine Action as part of a "violent left-wing terrorist network," but the criminal charges against members of the group primarily involve the vandalism of property, particularly that of arms producers complicit in Israel's military campaign in Gaza, which human rights groups like Amnesty International and B'Tselem have called a genocide. (A protester was convicted of injuring a law enforcement officer.) The designation recalls the recent action taken by the Department of Justice against a group of protesters in Texas for setting off fireworks and vandalizing cars outside the ICE detention center in Prairieland. A protester also exchanged gunfire with a law enforcement officer during the incident, but the DOJ pursued "material support for terrorism" charges against 15 protesters and obtained prison sentences totaling hundreds of years among them.

The politicization of the term "terrorism"

What makes the actions of Palestine Action or the Prairieland protesters "terrorism" rather than mere crimes? Federal prosecutors have insisted that the Texas protesters were part of an "antifa cell" planning terrorist acts, citing evidence such as their black clothing and possession of anti-fascist reading material to justify decades of prison time, even for protesters not involved in any violence. This sensational "terrorism prosecution" is consistent with the National Security Presidential Memorandum ([NSPM-7](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/)), titled "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence." The memorandum promises a crackdown on forces of "antifascism," as well as supporters of "anti-Americanism" and various forms of "extremism" and "hostility toward those with traditional American views on family, religion, and morality." The administration has also insisted that a protester killed by ICE was an "internal terrorist"; has labeled "antifa" an internal terrorist organization (despite the fact that this designation does not exist); and has published a bizarre report alleging a vast conspiracy led by Cuba that supports "powerful left-wing nonprofits, anti-ICE collectives, socialist groups, and militant Marxist organizations across the United States."

The implications for dissidents

What will all of this mean for those who express disagreement with U.S. foreign policy regarding [Israel](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/tag/israel/) or [Cuba](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/tag/cuba/)? And for those who "support" Palestine Action by asserting that it has been improperly designated? And for nonprofits that fund and organize activism? And for those who peacefully participate in a legal protest where others commit wrongful acts? All of this comes back to the central question: "What is terrorism?" The criminalization of protests as "terrorism" is a disturbing sign of the direction in which society is moving. It is essential that citizens, media, and civil society organizations continue to monitor and challenge these trends to ensure that fundamental rights are protected and that democracy is not eroded. The struggle for freedom of expression and association is an ongoing battle, and it requires constant vigilance and commitment.