President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has brought conspiracy charges against activists for actions such as wearing black clothing at demonstrations, providing face masks to protesters, joining book clubs, or distributing zines, arguing that these acts constitute participation in an organized criminal enterprise. Federal prosecutors have filed indictments in multiple states, including cases in Chicago and Spokane, Washington, alleging that activists are part of an antifa conspiracy.

Legal scholars note that the strategy aligns with the intent of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was created to combat organized crime but has been used historically against labor unions, communist groups, and anti‑war activists. G. Robert Blakey, the principal author of the 1970 RICO statute, said the law was meant to enable a fair fight between individuals and powerful institutions, yet it has often been employed to target organizers rather than actual criminal conspiracies. Steffen Seitz, a litigation fellow at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, observed that the administration is “trying to explicitly go after social movements, and conspiracy is something that allows them to do that particularly effectively.”

The use of conspiracy law expands the evidentiary universe available to prosecutors, allowing investigators to treat seemingly benign actions—such as attending a demonstration or wearing a sweatshirt that says “I’m Antifa!”—as proof of coordinated criminal intent. In 2023, Georgia’s attorney general invoked the state RICO statute against 61 “Stop Cop City” activists, alleging a sweeping criminal enterprise; a judge later dismissed the charges. The Department of Justice’s June indictment of 15 Minnesota anti‑ICE activists cited similar reasoning, claiming that online watch‑group chats and the distribution of masks indicated a plot.

Trump has repeatedly linked dissent to alleged conspiracies, designating “antifa” a domestic terrorist organization and releasing a playbook for investigating groups he describes as engaged in “anti‑Americanism, anti‑capitalism, and anti‑Christianity.” He has claimed substantial evidence of voter fraud and accused media outlets of participating in a plot to protect the radical left.

The growing reliance on conspiracy charges raises questions about the balance between national security objectives and First Amendment protections, and whether the administration will continue to criminalize dissent under the guise of combating organized crime.