The administration is gearing up for a large-scale crackdown on left-wing dissent. They are openly proclaiming their intent to label enemies domestic terrorists and to prosecute them accordingly. The threat of widescale repression is no longer abstract; it is imminent. It is a matter of days or weeks. In some ways, it has already begun.
I do not have to spend hours researching and analyzing and putting sources together to show you this is true. I can simply show you raw quotes from the three media events the Trump administration participated in yesterday. JD Vance took over as host for the Charlie Kirk show. Trump answered questions in the Oval Office after sending the National Guard to Memphis. And Pam Bondi made an hour-long appearance on Katie Miller’s new podcast.
Quotes from all three of these appearances are circulating around the Internet, and any single one could be mistaken for yet another out-of-pocket threat that will be forgotten by tomorrow. Taken together, however, the messages appear both clear and coordinated: they are saying the same thing using similar words in response to similar questions. To say that message is grim would be an understatement. We are in a new kind of danger, and once that danger arrives it is likely to move fast.
Here it is, in the administration’s own words:
1. Vance Does Charlie Kirk’s Podcast
In a move people are calling “very normal” and “definitely not fascist propaganda,” JD Vance hosted the Charlie Kirk show yesterday. Here’s how he ended his introductory monologue:
Vance (14:25): “We have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years, and I believe is part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin’s bullet. We’re going to talk about how to dismantle that and how to bring real unity.”
“Dismantle” implies structure: not some nebulous ideology but a concrete, well-funded organization. Which is what he’ll be going after. Not free speech. He would never.
Vance (25:21): “You have the crazies on the far left who are saying “Oh, Stephen Miller and JD Vance, they’re going to go after constitutionally protected speech.” No, no, no. We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence. That’s not OK. Violence is not OK in our system and we want to make it less likely that that happens.”
What NGO network? Glad you asked: Stephen Miller is already on the air and ready to explain. Vance asks Miller to tell the audience “what the whole administration has been working on to try to make sure that we don’t reward and promote this craziness.”
Miller: “We are going to channel all the anger we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks…the organized doxxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses — combining that with messaging that’s designed to trigger, incite violence, and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence.
“It is a vast domestic terror movement. And with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks.”
Miller has just linked these very different kinds of activity together as part of one overarching “terrorist network,” which is a good way to define a mean tweet as “terrorism.” If one were so inclined. With Stephen Miller very much is. We’ll hear more about that during Trump’s press conference below.
Vance goes on to spend the next hour and a half eulogizing Charlie Kirk as some kind of paragon of discourse and friendly debate, which is laughably untrue. Finally, Vance delivers his closing remarks. They are….not ideal.
Vance (1:54:56): “I have heard many calls in the last few days for unity and for healing in the wake of Charlie’s assassination. You have no idea how desperately I want that, how gratified I was when Democratic friends and even former Senate colleagues reached out to offer their condolences to me…
”…but unity — real unity — can be found only after climbing the mountain of truth. And there are difficult truths we must confront in our country. One truth is that 24 percent of self-described “very liberals” believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent, while only three percent of self-described “very conservatives” agree. Three percent is too many, of course. Another truth is that 26 percent of young liberals believe political violence is sometimes justified and only seven percent of young conservatives say the same. Again, too high a number…but the data is clear: people on the left are much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence. This is not a both-sides problem.”
Quick fact check: I found a YouGov poll that supports JD Vance’s numbers. Also, I have questions about the wording of that poll, because I don’t believe these results for a second.
If you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, odds are good they’ll mention protection against government tyranny. This isn’t me throwing stones: I’m a gun owner and that reason’s at the top of my list as well. Anyone who believes we need guns in case our government infringes on our right implicitly believes that political violence is justified in some cases. A lot more than seven percent of of conservatives are gun owners. So I have questions.
Even if this poll is dead-on accurate somehow, actions speak louder than words: violent extremism is overwhelrmingly right-wing in America. The CATO institute, a Libertarian think tank, tabulated all politically-motivated acts of terrorism (excluding 9/11) from 1975 to 2025. A strong majority of political violence comes from the right; very little comes from the left:
OK, but maybe all 65 of those deaths happened in the last two years, maybe it’s a new phenomenon. Nope! Here’s a CATO chart from after 2020:
If these numbers look a bit higher than you’re used to, there’s a reason for that: CATO has put their thumb on the scale to inflate that left-wing number. From the report: “Some marginal cases, like that of Aiden/Audrey Hale, are included even though the local police disagree. In that case, Hale was counted as being motivated by a left-wing ideology.”
I have chosen CATO’s data because it is the dataset that most strongly argues for political extremism as a both-sides issue. It presents the narrowest split I’ve found between left-wing and right-wing extremist murders. And still, this wildly optimistic data shows that right-wing extremists kill well over twice as many people as left-wing extremists do. Vance is right that it’s not a both-sides problem. He’s simply wrong about the sides.
Vance (1:58:21): “Any political movement, violent or not violent, is a collection of forces. It’s like a pyramid that stacks on top, one support on top of the other. That pyramid’s got a foundation of donors, of activists, of journalists, now of social media influencers, and of course, of politicians.
”Not every member of that pyramid would commit a murder. In fact, over 99%, I’m sure, would not. But by celebrating that murder, apologizing for it, and emphasizing not Charlie’s innocence, but the fact that he said things some didn’t like, even to the point of lying about what he actually said —many of these people are creating an environment where things like this are inevitably going to happen.”
Vance goes on to tell a couple stories about protesters screaming mean things at his kids and at Kirk’s kids. That’s not good. I’m also not sure we should determine public policy based on a handful of people being mean to Vance one time.
Vance: “There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder…and there is no unity with the people who fund these articles, who pay the salaries of these terrorists sympathizers, who argue that Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father, deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagree.”
Vance is referring to an article in The Nation, which did misquote Kirk (and has since been corrected). Last month, a Twitter user posted a video of Kirk’s rant about Black women taking the jobs of white men, accurately summarized his point, and put quotation marks around her summary. Several journalists did not watch the attached video and instead quoted the summary verbatim. That’s not good! Journalists need to be more careful! But a misquote is very different from saying that Kirk deserved to be murdered. I have not seen a single article that supports or justifies this murder. If you’ve got one, by all means post a link in the comments.
Vance is conflating “I don’t like Charlie Kirk and here’s why” with “I think Charlie Kirk should be murdered.” These sentences sound the same only to someone who thinks people they don’t like should be murdered. Curious.
Our Vice President immediately continues:
“Did you know that the George Soros Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation, the groups who funded that disgusting article justifying Charlie’s death? Do you know they benefit from generous tax treatment? They are literally subsidized by you and me, the American taxpayer. And how do they reward us? By setting fire to the house built by the American family over 250 years.”
JD Vance, who is so upset about a misquote, is lying about Soros funding. But if we’ve learned one thing over the past days, weeks, months, it’s that the right is allowed to tell lies. Vance is threatening liberal and progressive nonprofits with loss of tax-free status. Cool.
But wait. It gets so much worse.
2. Trump’s Press Conference
Yesterday, Trump invited the press corps into the Oval Office to announce his decision to send the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee. Several members of Trump’s inner circle, who stood behind him for his speech, said a few words as well.
It gives me no joy to quote Nosferatu Miller once again. He sure was busy yesterday:
Miller: (18:52): “The power of law enforcement under President Trump is going to be used to get all the criminals, all the violent offenders, all the murderers, all the cartels, and all the domestic terrorists off our streets. So whether you’re Antifa, whether you’re a domestic terrorist, whether you are a violent gang member, a drug trafficker, a Tren de Aragua killer, or anyone else [who] is hurting our people, President Trump is saying he’s going to use his FBI, his DoD, his ATF, his DEA to wipe you out, to put you behind bars, to take you off the street, or to apply whatever legal consequences necessary.”
Oh lord, Antifa has entered the chat, and it’s not leaving until the article is over. We’d better talk about what it means.
Antifa (pronounced AN-tifa) is an abreviation for anti-fascist coined in 1920s Europe: a very good thing to be. Some people also use it to describe a very specific kind of protester: those who wear black bloc, punch Nazis, and favor acts of civil disobedience and/or property destruction over permitted marches. These protesters sometimes have affinity groups, but tend to operate on anarchist principles which means no official power structure or heirarchy and certainly no Soros paychecks.
For the right, however, “Antifa” (pronounced An-TEEF-a) is a communist-funded terrorist organization that masterminds coordinated acts of violence against Real Americans™. The word also serves as a catch-all for anyone that makes MAGA look bad or does something they don’t like. The J6 rioters? Heroes, but also Antifa trying to make the right look bad. Peaceful protesters? Running cover for “Antifa and anarchist cells [that] would swoop in — masked, armed and ready for combat.” Me, myself, the person writing this article? Certified Antifa, per antifawatch.net.
Anyway, Stephen Miller just threatened to sic the FBI, DoD, ATF, and DEA on anyone he thinks fits that above description. This, to me, seems bad.
A few minutes later, one of the fair and balanced reporters in the White House Press Corps asked for clarification:
Reporter (24:28): “Given all that’s going on with Charlie Kirk’s assassination…do you plan on designating Antifa a domestic terror organization”
Trump: “It’s something I would do, yeah, if I have support from the people back here. I think it would start with Pam, I think. But I would do that 100%. And others also, by the way. But Antifa is terrible. There are other groups, we have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder. Also, I’ve been speaking to the attorney general about bringing RICO against some of the people that you’ve been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation.”
Much later in the presser, a different reporter asks for clarification on that RICO thing. Trump punts to Stephen Miller; here he is again:
Miller (44:33): “So there’s this whole network of organizations. And I think the key point the president’s been making is: somebody is paying for all this. This is not happening for free. And so, under the president’s direction, the attorney general is going to find out who is paying for it.”
Shadowy cabals funding Antifa. Soros-paid protesters. I’m so glad we’re back in 2020, what a great year that was, I’m so stoked to live through it again.
Except it’s worse this time, because trans hatred has become so mainstream, so common-place and unremarkable, that we now have “reporters” in the Oval Office encouraging Trump to ban trans flags as dangerous hate speech:
Reporter (39:08): “On these trans shooters that we’ve seen over the last couple incidents — this flag right here is up and down 14th street. This is what would be the trans flag. A lot of people are very threatened by this flag. It means a lot of different negative things to people, violence. Would you be opposed to taking this flag down up and down the streets of DC?”
Trump: “Well, I wouldn’t be. Then they’ll sue and they’ll get freedom of speech stuff, you know. So that’ll happen. But I would have no problem with it.”
Trump then goes on a protracted rant about why we must outlaw the burning of the American flag. He explains that this act promotes violence and causes fighting, which makes it too dangerous to allow. The reporter, unsatisfied, pressures him further with a follow-up question.
Reporter: “Well there’s also groups called Transtifa. So perhaps if you can label them a domestic terrorist group and you can, in all reality, you could take the flag down because it would represent the Transtifa.”
I swear to God this is a real question someone really asked the real President of the increasingly fake United States of America. Here’s Trump’s full response:
Trump: “I think you probably could. Again, you’ll be sued, and it’s OK. I’ve been sued before a couple of times.”
The press pool laughs, and Trump immediately takes the next question.
3. Pam Bondi
A few hours after Trump’s presser, Pam Bondi appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, a brand-new series launched by Stephen Miller’s disconcertingly attractive wife. Am I allowed to say that? They’re a dramatically mixed-attractiveness couple, that’s all I’m saying, and it doesn’t seem like he’s got a good enough personality to overcome that deficit unless she has some sort of banality-of-evil fetish. It inspires questions, is all I’m saying. Questions I don’t actually want answers to.
None of this matters, it’s just that everything is awful and I have to have my little jokes. Let’s get into Bondi’s conversation with Mina Harker here (and I am almost sorry for the way I’ve chosen to read her voice in the audio version):
Bondi (12:15): “On a broader level, the antisemtism–what’s been happening at college campuses around this country is disgusting. It’s despicable. And we’ve been fighting that. We’ve been fighting these universities left and right, and we’re not going to stop. There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.”
Katie Miller: “Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?”
Bondi: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech — anything. And that’s across the aisle. I mean, look what happened. Think about Josh Shapiro…Democrat, governor, Jewish. They firebombed his house when his wife and children were sleeping upstairs.”
Bondi is referring to an assassination attempt on the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania back in April, carried out by a man with severe mental illness and a history of domestic violence. After the attack, the suspect called 911 and told the operator that he “will not take part in [Shapiro’s] plans for what he wants to do with the Palestinian people.” Shapiro, who is Jewish, supports a two-state solution and has demanded the White House send food to feed the people Israel is currently starving to death.
We have a word for blaming all Jewish people for Israel’s actions. That word is antisemitism.
Recall that Pam Bondi led into her hate speech declaration by talking about allegedly antisemitic college protests that are, in reality, supported by many Jewish students and often organized by Jewish activist groups. A more direct comparison to Kirk’s assassination would be the recent assassination of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman, her husband, and their golden retriever by an evangelical conservative with a “kill list” of 45 Democratic politicians and public figures. Rather than do that, which might suggest that the far right is capable of violence, she chose to cite a case motivated by genuine antisemitism, which she has just falsly ascribed to the left. This is not the “across the aisle” case she pretends it is. This is her doubling down on the idea that the Left is to blame for all domestic terrorism.
(Talking about Melissa Hortman would also require her to remember who Melissa Hortman is. When asked why he didn’t lower flags to half-staff for her at a recent press conference, Trump’s response was: “I’m not familiar — the who?”)
About five minutes later, Bondi goes into a bit more detail on what kind of “hate speech” she intends to prosecute:
Katie Miller (17:37): “When you see a post online, or when it’s brought to your attention about these people who cheered Charlie’s murder, who are encouraging other violence against other people in our society, what actions are you taking at the DOJ?”
Bondi: “Well, some of them worked in the administration. A couple of them – no longer, of course, But I already texted with [assistant Attorney General] Harmeet Dhillon this morning about an Office Depot that refused to print posters of Charlie for a vigil. They can’t do that in the world in which we live. Can’t do it. And you’re going to be held accountable and we’re going to publicly shame you too.
Miller: I saw that Office Depot said they fired one of the three people who worked there. I think all three should have been terminated”
Bondi: “Agree”
Miller: “And we should investigate Office Depot.”
Bondi: “Agree
I don’t want to be too “woke” or whatever but I think maybe we should not investigate Office Depot for refusing to print a flyer. Call me a radical leftist lunatic but it seems like Office Depot isn’t making any kind of speech at all, is in fact refusing to participate in speech, and that seems like a right Office Depot — a private corporation — has.
The two women talk about being political girlbosses, balancing work and family, etc for about ten minutes before Katie Miller directly asks about Antifa:
Katie Miller (27:56): “From your perspective as attorney general, how serious is the threat of domestic terrorism from radical groups like Antifa compared to just a few years ago?”
Bondi: “There’s a tremendous amount of domestic terrorism and also, because as you well know, these foreign terrorist organizations were let into our country over the last four years and we have to get them out of our country…but yeah, there’s domestic terrorists, there are foreign terrorists, they’re here. But I’ll tell you, FBI’s intelligence unit working with all of our intelligence agencies in this country — I’ve seen things I never thought we could do as a country to root out the evil and get them out of our country.”
During his press conference, Trump said Bondi would determine whether Antifa is a terrorist organization Bondi has given a noncommittal answer here: she hasn’t said she will, but she hasn’t ruled it out. It’s no coincidence that Katie Miller asked about Antifa terrorists while her husband was running around DC pushing the Antifa terrorist narrative. Stephen Miller might be the most powerful man in America right now, with the possible exception of Russ Vought. When he tells us what he’s about to push for, we should listen.
Three terrible press appearances, three clear visions of the administration’s roadmap going forward. Anything that falls short of canonizing Charlie Kirk is hate speech. Nonprofits that allow such “hate speech” will lose their tax-exempt status; individuals and orgs who engage in thoughtcrime risk legal prosecution.
The administration will also continue to wield soft power in ways no American administration has ever dared to do. Pam Bondi can’t actually prosecute Office Depot under existing law, JD Vance can’t force newspapers and corporate offices to fire people for quoting Charlie Kirk’s own words on social media. But we all know what happens to companies and institutions that cross Trump; they tend to find themselves in apparently unrelated legal trouble that everyone knows is extremely related to Trump’s ire. Easier to fire a couple people, don’t you think?
As I began to finalize this draft, Trump made another appearance — an encore, if you will — and answered questons enroute to England. Most questions involved Israel and Gaza and tariffs and Robet Redford, but one reporter asked something else.
I encourage you to click through and listen to this one yourself because sometimes, when Trump says something truly awful, he says it in a light and joking tone so that you can take it as a joke if you would like to. But there is no humor in Trump’s voice when he responds. Here it is:
Reporter (12:40): “What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after hate speech? A lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.”
Trump: “She’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.
Reporter: “Would that be appropriate?”
Trump: “Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they’ll have to go after you.
“Look. We want everything to be fair. It hasn’t been fair. And the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country. But we’re fixing it.”
Thumbnail art from Ed Ruscha’s “Our Flag,” from a picture I took when I saw it at MoMA. Learn more about Ruscha and his art here.
Oh my God. Please be careful, Laura.
Ha! I had not read this Stack yet when I made this general reply on BlueSky: "They like to say An TEE’ fah, to make it sound foreign. Compared to Anti-Fa, which is short for Anti-Fascist."