Federal Terrorism Law and U.S. Civil Society: An Explainer
Published February 2026
This briefer summarizes select federal terrorism offenses and designations that may be relevant to U.S. nonprofits and activists.
Federal law does not have a standalone offense of “domestic terrorism.” Federal law does, however, contain terrorism-related provisions that can cover domestic actors. Examples include the offense of providing material support for terrorism and increased penalties for certain crimes if they involve terrorism. Federal law also provides for the designation of “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” (SDGTs), which can apply to U.S.-based entities and individuals, as well as the designation of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs), which can create criminal and civil liability for U.S.-based actors that engage with FTOs.
U.S. nonprofits and activists have been impacted by federal terrorism-related provisions of federal law. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have designated nonprofits as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), leading to the freezing of their assets and suspension of their tax-exempt status. Environmental activists have received “terrorism enhancements” for crimes related to damaging fossil fuel infrastructure, significantly increasing their sentences, and anti-ICE and other protesters have faced charges of material support for terrorism. Historically, however, applications of terrorism-related designations and charges against domestic nonprofits and activists have been rare, and the First Amendment provides robust protection for speech, association, and peaceful assembly.
The following summary and chart briefly describe select federal terrorism designations, offenses, and penalties that may be relevant to U.S. nonprofits and activists. For information about state terrorism laws, see ICNL’s report State Domestic Terrorism Laws in the United States: A Growing Threat to First Amendment Rights and accompanying database of state domestic terrorism laws.
Summary
This explainer provides an overview of the following crimes and designations related to terrorism. Click on the crime or designation for a more detailed explanation:
Offense of providing material support for terrorist offenses (18 U.S.C. §2339A): It is a federal felony to provide, attempt to provide, or conspire to provide “material support” for the commission of a specified terrorism-related crime. Some of the specified crimes can cover purely domestic conduct, such as arson, willful damage to federal property, and willful damage to an energy facility, among others. “Material support” is broadly defined to include any property or service, including “expert advice or assistance.” Significantly, liability under 18 U.S.C. §2339A requires that one know or intend that the “support” will be used for the preparation or commission of a specified terrorist offense. In limited instances, protesters and activists have been charged under this offense for activity within the U.S.
Terrorism sentencing enhancement: Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a court may significantly increase the penalty for any federal felony if it involved or was intended to promote “a federal crime of terrorism.” Federal law defines a “federal crime of terrorism” as the commission of a specified offense that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” Activists have faced substantially steeper penalties for unlawful conduct such as federal property crimes, even though they involved no injuries, based on terrorism enhancements.
Designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT): The federal government may designate a U.S.-based organization or individual as an SDGT under Executive Order 13224. The designation may be based on one of several grounds, including a government determination that the entity materially supported an act of “terrorism,” or that it provided material support to another designated entity, including another SDGT. SDGT designation freezes an entity’s assets and subjects it to other sanctions and penalties, including suspension of its tax-exempt status (see discussion of Section 501(p) of the tax code, below). Since the designation’s creation in 2001, nine U.S. nonprofits—all of which were accused of supporting foreign organizations or individuals involved in terrorism—have been designated SDGTs. Federal courts have found that U.S. nonprofits have important procedural and First Amendment protections in relation to SDGT designations.
Suspension of tax-exempt status under Section 501(p) of the Internal Revenue Code: If the executive branch designates a nonprofit as supporting or engaging in terrorist activities in a manner outlined in 501(p) of the Internal Revenue Code, the organization’s tax-exempt status is suspended. The nine U.S. nonprofits that have been designated SDGTs are the only U.S.-based organizations that have had their tax-exempt status suspended under Section 501(p).
Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO): The Secretary of State may designate a foreign organization as an FTO. While federal law limits the FTO designation to “foreign organizations,” FTO designations have implications for U.S.-based nonprofits and activists. In particular, individuals or entities that provide funding or other material support to an FTO may be subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. §2339B, discussed further below, or civil lawsuits. No U.S.-based nonprofit has been designated an FTO.
Offense of providing material support to designated terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. §2339B): It is a federal felony to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspire to provide “material support” to a designated FTO. The offense uses the same broad definition of “material support” as 18 U.S.C. §2339A, discussed above. An individual may only be liable for the offense if they know that they are providing (or attempting or conspiring to provide) material support, and that the recipient is a designated FTO or otherwise engaged in terrorism.
Designation as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”: In 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) designating “Antifa”[1] as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” The designation was not based in any underlying statutory authority and, as such, does not trigger new criminal penalties for members of the designated entity or those who support or otherwise engage with it. The EO instead directs federal executive agencies to investigate and prosecute unlawful conduct by “Antifa” or individuals claiming to act on behalf of “Antifa,” as well as those who fund such conduct. Under National Security Presidential Memo 7 (NSPM-7), issued shortly after the Antifa EO, organizations purportedly linked to “domestic terrorism,” including those designated as “domestic terrorist organizations,” may be subject to heightened tax scrutiny, financial surveillance, and criminal investigations among other potential consequences.
Offense of providing material support for terrorist offenses (18 U.S.C. §2339A)
It is a federal felony to provide material support for a specified terrorism-related offense, including offenses occurring within the U.S. (18 U.S.C. §2339A). The crime requires that one knowingly or intentionally provide support for an underlying terrorism-related offense, or attempt or conspire to do so. Funders and activists who knowingly provide funding or other support to individuals or organizations that are found to have engaged in terrorist activities could face prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2339A. The government has recently charged activists and protesters under this provision.
What is prohibited under this provision?
18 U.S.C. §2339A prohibits the provision of material support or concealing such material support knowing or intending that the support will be used for the commission of certain offenses. The provision prohibits the provision of material support for all offenses listed as “federal crimes of terrorism” under §2332b(g)(5)(B)[2], which include willful damage to federal property, arson, knowing and willful damage to an energy facility, and knowing and willful destruction of certain gas pipelines, among others.
Definition of “material support” under §2339A
“Material support” means the provision of “any property, tangible or intangible, or service,” which includes “currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. §2339A((b)(1).
What is the level of intent required?
To be criminally liable under §2339A, an individual or entity must “know” or “intend” that the support they are providing will be used for a listed offense.
What are the consequences for providing material support for terrorist activities?
Criminal liability: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. §2339A carries a maximum penalty of 15 years if no death is associated with the offense; if the offense results in death, the penalty may be life in prison. Courts may also impose fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.
Civil liability: Provision of material support under §2339A may give rise to a civil lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. §2333. Plaintiffs’ claims under §2333 are substantially limited by jurisdictional requirements and other statutory barriers. See, e.g.,18 U.S.C. §2334-38.
Predicate offenses for other charges:A §2339A violation can qualify as a “federal crime of terrorism” under 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5)(A) if it fulfills additional elements. A federal crime of terrorism is a predicate offense for charges under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. As discussed below, a defendant may also face enhanced sentencing for felonies involving or intending to promote a federal crime of terrorism.
Return to Summary ↑
Terrorism sentencing enhancement
If an individual is convicted of a federal felony that involved or was intended to promote a crime of terrorism as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5), the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommends that a court substantially increase the sentence. Guidelines Manual 2025: §3A1.4. Several federal criminal statutes also explicitly provide for increased penalties if the crime involves international or domestic terrorism.
When may a court apply a terrorism sentencing enhancement?
Under the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines, a court may apply the sentencing enhancement to any federal felony that “involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism.” Guidelines Manual 2025: §3A1.4. Federal law defines a “federal crime of terrorism” as the commission of a specified offense that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5). The Guidelines also advise that an offense involving harboring or concealing someone who committed a “federal crime of terrorism,” or obstructing an investigation of a “federal crime of terrorism,” is subject to the enhancement. Courts have generally applied the enhancement in two situations: first, for the commission of offenses listed as federal crimes of terrorism under §2332b(g)(5), and second, when a person has “encourage[d], further[ed], or [brought] about” such an offense.
In addition, several federal criminal statutes explicitly provide for increased penalties if the crime “involves” international or domestic terrorism. For instance, 18 U.S.C. §1001 prohibits knowingly and willfully making false statements to a federal agent or submitting false documents to a federal agency. If the offense “involves” international or domestic terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2331, the maximum penalty for the offense increases from five to eight years. Prosecutors have sought the terrorism enhancement for prosecutions of 18 U.S.C. §1001 where, for instance, the defendant federal agent lied to investigators about disclosing information related to a counterterrorism investigation. See United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels (5th Cir., 2024).
How have courts historically applied the terrorism sentencing enhancement to nonprofits and activists?
Courts have occasionally applied the terrorism sentencing enhancement to individual activists who damaged or destroyed property, including members of the Earth Liberation Front for arson of various properties to protest environmental degradation, and activist Jessica Rae Reznicek for conspiracy to damage the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT)
Executive Order (EO) 13224, issued by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks, relies on authorities granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other legislation. It empowers the federal government to designate individuals or entities as SDGTs, a designation that can extend to those who provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations or to other SDGTs. SDGTs are subject to sanctions, including asset freezes, that are administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at the Treasury Department. Since the issuance of EO 13224 (modified by EO 13886)[3], the government has designated at least nine U.S.-based nonprofits as SDGTs, effectively shutting down these organizations’ operations. OFAC maintains a list of current SDGTs as part of its broader list of Specially Designated and Blocked Persons (SDNs).
Which government body is responsible for the designation?
The Secretary of the Treasury may designate a U.S.-based organization or individual as an SDGT. The Secretary must make the designation in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. EO 13224 §1(a)(ii).
What is the legal basis for the designation?
EO 13224, relying on authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. §1702), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945.
When can a nonprofit or activist be designated as an SDGT?
EO 13224 sets out several bases on which an individual or entity may be designated as an SDGT. Of particular relevance to U.S. nonprofits and activists, the government may designate as an SDGT an individual or entity that the government determines has “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, an act of terrorism…or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to [Executive Order 13224].”EO 13224 §1(a)(iii)(c). In other words, an entity that materially assists or supports a designated SDGT may itself be subject to designation under EO 13224.
Other grounds for designation as an SDGT under the EO can be found under Section 1(a) of EO 13224.
What are the consequences of designation as an SDGT?
Sanctions: When an organization or individual is designated as an SDGT, they face sanctions and are included on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List. Unless exempted or otherwise authorized by OFAC, all property in possession of the SDGT that is either in the in the U.S. or that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. individual or entity is blocked. Executive Order 13224 §1(a).
Suspension of tax-exempt status: If a U.S. nonprofit is designated as an SDGT, its tax-exempt status is also suspended. (See discussion of 26 U.S.C. §501(p) below.)
How might the designation affect those who engage with a designated organization or individual?
Penalties for violating sanctions: Federal law prohibits third parties from engaging in financial transactions with SDGTs or their property. Executive Order 13224 §2(a). Violating, attempting to violate, conspiring to violate, or causing a violation of sanctions related to an SDGT is punishable by criminal penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, or civil penalties of the greater of $250,000 or double the amount of the transaction. 50 U.S.C. § 1705(a)–(c).
Designation as an SDGT for providing material support to a SDGT: As noted above, individuals and organizations that have “materially assisted or sponsored” an SDGT or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to an SDGT can themselves be designated as an SDGT. Executive Order 13224 §1(a)(iii)(C).
Are there any notable interpretive documents or cases related to designations of nonprofits as SDGTs?
Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. §594.-101-594.901): These regulations are authorized under EO 13224 and provide further details about terrorism-related sanctions. Among other things, they provide definitions of prohibited actions, authorize licenses for conduct that would otherwise be a violation of terrorism sanctions under EO 13224, and lay out penalties for violations of sanctions. The regulations define SDGTs to include not just individuals designated under EO 13224, but also those designated by Congress under the Shields Act and select other mechanisms. §31 C.F.R. 594.310. This explainer focuses on SDGT designation under EO 13224, as that designation has historically most impacted U.S. nonprofits.
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner et al. (N.D. Ohio, 2009): This case set a precedent that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before freezing an organization’s assets. OFAC had frozen KindHearts’ assets pending an investigation into whether it should be designated an SDGT. A federal district judge ultimately ruled that OFAC had violated KindHearts’ due process and Fourth Amendment rights by freezing its assets without a warrant based on probable cause, and without providing the charity meaningful notice and opportunity to defend itself. In a settlement following the ruling, the Treasury Department agreed to unfreeze KindHeart’s assets while KindHearts agreed to dissolve.
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF) v. U.S. Department of Treasury (9th Cir., 2011): The Ninth Circuit found that the government violated the constitutional rights of AHIF, the Oregon-based branch of an international charity, by not providing adequate notice and seizing the organization’s assets without a warrant. The Court also found that, despite AHIF’s SDGT designation, a different U.S. nonprofit had a First Amendment right to engage in “coordinated advocacy” with AHIF, such as by holding a joint press conference. Applying strict scrutiny, the court noted that in Humanitarian Law Project (discussed below) the Supreme Court did not directly reach the question of what “coordinated advocacy” is protected by the First Amendment and that in this case there is “little evidence that the pure-speech activities proposed” by the U.S. nonprofit on behalf of AHIF-Oregon “will aid the larger international organization’s sinister purposes.”
Suspension of tax-exempt status under Section 501(p) of the Internal Revenue Code
After the 9/11 attacks, Congress added 26 U.S.C. §501(p) to the U.S. tax code in 2003. Under §501(p), if the executive branch designates a nonprofit in a prescribed manner as supporting or engaging in terrorist activity—such as designation as an SDGT—the organization’s tax-exempt status is suspended. The IRS maintains a public list of organizations whose tax-exempt status have been suspended under this provision. The list currently includes nine organizations, all of which had been designated as SDGTs.
When will an organization’s tax -exempt status be suspended under §501(p)?
An organization’s tax-exempt status is suspended if the executive branch designates or individually identifies an organization:
- As a terrorist organization or foreign terrorist organization under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) or 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA);
- In or pursuant to an executive order related to terrorism and issued under the authority of IEEPA or the United Nations Participation Act, Section 5 for the purpose of imposing on such organization an economic or other sanction (such as designation as an SDGT); or
- In or pursuant to any executive order issued under the authority of any federal law that designates or identifies the organization as supporting or engaging in terrorist activity (as defined under the INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)) or as supporting terrorism (as defined by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, DY 1988 and 1989 Section 140(d)(2)). The executive order must also refer to 501(p).
What are the consequences of exempt status suspension under 501(p)?
During the period of suspension, an organization is no longer exempt from federal income tax. Contributions to the organization are also not tax-deductible during the period of suspension, and some private foundations may be unable or unwilling to make grants to the organization.
Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) empowers the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). Federal law limits FTO designations to “foreign organization[s]” and the federal government has not designated any U.S.-based nonprofit as an FTO. However, FTO designations have affected U.S. nonprofits and activists. Because federal law criminalizes providing “material support” to FTOs, individuals and entities may face criminal sanctions for providing funding or other support to an FTO. (See discussion of 18 U.S.C. §2339B, below.) The State Department maintains a public list of designated FTOs, the number of which has significantly increased since 2025 as the Trump administration has designated as FTOs entities including Latin American drug cartels, European antifa or anarchist groups, and the Lebanese chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Which government body is responsible for the designation?
The Secretary of State (See 8 U.S.C. §1189)
What is the legal basis for the designation?
Section 219 on “designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations” of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §1189), which was added in 1996 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (P.L.104-132)
When can a nonprofit be designated as an FTO?
The Secretary of State may designate an organization as an FTO if:
- The organization is a foreign organization;
- The organization engages in “terrorist activity” or “terrorism” or “retains the capability and intent” to do so; and
- The terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States. 8 U.S.C. §1189(a)(1).
Federal law does not define “foreign organization” for the purposes of this designation.
“Terrorist activity” includes a number of unlawful actions, including hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance, certain kidnappings, assassinations, using any explosive, firearm, or “dangerous device”, as well as a threat, attempt, or conspiracy to undertake any of these underlying actions. INA, Section 212(a)(3)(B) (8 U.S.C. §1882(a)(3)(B)(iii)).
“Terrorism” means “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (P.L.100-204), Section 140(d)(2) (22 U.S.C. §2656f(d)(2)).
What are the consequences of designation as an FTO?
Sanctions: As with SDGTs, when an organization is designated as an FTO, it faces sanctions and is included on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List.All property that is in the possession of the SDGT in the U.S. or that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. person is blocked. INA §219(a)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. §1189(a)(2)(C)).
Immigration: Representatives and members of a designated organization are inadmissible and sometimes removable from the United States if they are not U.S. nationals. INA Section 212(a)(3)(B) and 237(a)(4)(B). (8 U.S.C. §1189(a)(3)(B) and §1227(a)(4)(B)).
How might the designation affect those who engage with a designated organization?
Criminal liability for providing material support to an FTO: Individuals or entities that fund or otherwise provide support to an FTO may violate the federal crime of providing material support to an FTO. (See discussion of 18 U.S.C. §2339B, below.)
Civil liability: Individuals and entities that provide material support to an FTO may face third-party civil lawsuits. Nonprofits have faced civil suits under the False Claims Act based on allegations that the organizations falsely certified to the federal government that they did not provide material support to individuals or entities engaged in terrorism. Additionally, in limited circumstances, individuals and entities that provide material support to an FTO may face liability under 18 U.S.C. §2333(d)(2). Under this provision, if a plaintiff is injured by an “act of international terrorism” that is committed, planned, or authorized by an FTO, the plaintiff may recover damages from “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with” the FTO. Plaintiffs’ claims under §2333 are substantially limited by jurisdictional requirements and other statutory barriers. See, e.g.,18 U.S.C. §2334-38.
What are notable cases or interpretive documents related to FTO designations?
See description of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, below, which concerns providing an FTO with “material support” including in the form of trainings and expert advice.
Offense of providing material support to designated terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. §2339B)
It is a federal felony to knowingly provide material support to Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), or to attempt or conspire to provide such support. Nonprofits and their staff can face criminal penalties if they provide such support to FTOs, including through otherwise lawful activities, such as providing trainings on peaceful conflict resolution to an FTO (see Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, below), or for providing financial support to organizations that are allegedly a front for an FTO (see Holy Land Foundation case, below).
What is prohibited under this provision?
Providing material support: 18 U.S.C. §2339B prohibits knowingly providing material support to entities that have been designated as FTOs, or attempting or conspiring to do so.
Definition of “material support”
“Material support” means the provision of “any property, tangible or intangible, or service,” which includes “currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. §2339A((b)(1).
What is the level of intent required?
To be criminally liable under §2339B, an individual or entity must (1) know that they are providing material support or attempting or conspiring to provide material support, and (2) know that the recipient was designated as an FTO or that the entity has engaged or engages in terrorism or terrorist activity. However, they do not need to intend to further the recipient’s terrorist activities (see Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, below).
What are the consequences for providing material support for terrorist activities?
Criminal liability: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. §2339B is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years in prison or a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations, or both.
Civil liability: Individuals and entities that provide material support to an FTO may face third-party civil lawsuits. Nonprofits have faced civil suits under the False Claims Act based on allegations that the organizations falsely certified to the government that they did not provide material support to individuals or entities engaged in terrorism. Additionally, in limited circumstances, individuals and entities that provide material support to an FTO may face liability under 18 U.S.C. §2333(d)(2). Under this provision, if a plaintiff is injured by an “act of international terrorism” that is committed, planned, or authorized by an FTO, the plaintiff may recover damages from “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with” the FTO. Plaintiffs’ claims under §2333 are substantially limited by jurisdictional requirements and other statutory barriers. See, e.g.,18 U.S.C. §2334-38.
Predicate offenses for other charges: Providing material support in violation of §2339B can qualify as a “federal crime of terrorism” under 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5) if it fulfills additional elements. A federal crime of terrorism is a predicate offense for charges under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. As discussed above, a defendant may also face enhanced sentencing for felonies involving or intending to promote a federal crime of terrorism.
Key interpretive cases or other interpretive documents
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (561 U.S. 1 (2010)): The Supreme Court found that it would be unlawful “material support” for a nonprofit to provide certain aid, including “training” and “expert advice and assistance” in international law and nonviolent dispute resolution, to a designated FTO. The Court explicitly distinguished the type of speech involved in a “training” or “expert advice and assistance” from “independent advocacy” for a terrorist group or cause, which federal law does not criminalize. The Court affirmed that “any independent advocacy in which plaintiffs wish to engage is not prohibited” material support under §2339B. While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on providing material support to an FTO, the Court observed that it did “not suggest that Congress could extend. . . the same prohibition on material support to domestic organizations.”
Holy Land Foundation case (United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011)): The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld convictions of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF), and five individuals working for the foundation, for charges including providing material support to an FTO. The government claimed that HLF had given money to zakat committees (faith-based charities that collect and distribute Islamic alms) in Palestine. While these zakat committees were not designated themselves, the government alleged they were front organizations controlled by Hamas, a designated FTO.
Designation as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”
In September 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order designating “Antifa” as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” This designation differs from SDGT and FTO designations. There is no underlying statutory authority for the designation of domestic entities as “domestic terrorist organizations,” and the Antifa EO does not cite any such authority. As such, the Antifa EO does not create new criminal penalties for members of the designated entity or those who provide it with “material support.” However, the Antifa EO does direct federal agencies to investigate and prosecute unlawful conduct by “Antifa” or individuals claiming to act on behalf of “Antifa,” and those who fund such conduct. Further, National Security Presidential Memo-7 (NSPM-7) on “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” issued shortly after the Antifa EO, instructs federal agencies to pursue a national counterterrorism strategy focused on illegal acts motivated or linked to “anti-fascism” and related ideologies. As described below, NSPM-7 directs the Justice Department and other executive agencies to undertake investigatory and enforcement actions that may result in consequences for organizations designated as “domestic terrorist organizations” and those who support or otherwise engage with them. These may include criminal investigations, financial surveillance, and heightened tax scrutiny, among others.
Which government body is responsible for the designation?
The President. Under NSPM-7, the Attorney General may recommend that an entity be designated as a “domestic terrorist organization” if its members are engaged in activities meeting the definition of “domestic terrorism” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2331(5).
What is the legal basis for the designation?
Executive Order. There is no statutory authorization for the President to designate domestic individuals or organizations as “domestic terrorists” or “domestic terrorist organizations.”
What are the consequences of designation as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”?
The Antifa EO directs all relevant executive agencies to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle” illegal operations conducted by Antifa or by any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa, or for which Antifa provided “material support.” EO Sec. 2. NSPM-7, which references the Antifa EO, includes a section titled “Investigating Domestic Terrorist Organizations” which orders various investigatory and other actions by executive agencies. Under NSPM-7, consequences for “domestic terrorist organizations” may include:
Investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct. NSPM-7 directs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices (JTTFs[4]) to “investigate, prosecute, and disrupt” groups and individuals “engaged in acts of political violence and intimidation designed to suppress lawful political activity or obstruct the rule of law.” NSPM-7 Sec. 2(a). Targets for investigation may include principal actors as well as officers, employees, and funders of organizations that are “responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet” the principal actors engaged in such acts. NSPM-7 Sec. 2(c)(i). NSPM-7 directs federal law enforcement agencies to prioritize investigation and prosecution of certain federal crimes, including assaulting or impeding federal officers, providing material support for terrorist offenses or to an FTO, conspiracy, and fraud. NSPM-7 Sec. 2(k). Similarly, NSPM-7 directs the Justice Department to issue guidance ensuring that “domestic terrorism priorities” include “organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder.” NSPM-7 Sec. 2(h).
Financial surveillance. NSPM-7 directs the Treasury Department to “identify and disrupt financial networks that fund political violence.” This includes deploying “investigative tools” and providing guidance to financial institutions to file Suspicious Activity Reports to trace illicit funding streams. NSPM-7 Sec. 2(i).
IRS scrutiny. NSPM-7 directs the Internal Revenue Service to “ensure that no tax-exempt entities are directly or indirectly financing political violence or domestic terrorism.” Where applicable, the IRS is also directed to refer such organizations to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. NSPM-7 Sec. 2(j).
How might the designation affect those who engage with a designated organization?
While the Antifa EO does not create new criminal penalties for individuals or groups that engage with a designated entity, it directs executive agencies to take “necessary investigatory and prosecutorial actions” against those who fund illegal operations conducted by Antifa or by any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa. NSPM-7 similarly directs the JTTFs to investigate not only principal actors engaged in unlawful conduct related to domestic terrorism, but also “institutional and individual funders” and organizations that are “responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet” those actors. Entities and individuals that provide financial and other support to designated “domestic terrorist organizations” may additionally face heightened scrutiny by the IRS and the Treasury Department, as discussed above.
What can civil society do to navigate relevant terrorism laws?
The following are steps civil society can take to navigate U.S. terrorism laws. The following does not constitute legal advice or substitute for legal counsel.
ASSESS RISK. Nonprofits and activists should assess if their work risks triggering terrorism-related penalties. A meaningful risk assessment should aim to distinguish between the risk of legal liability under existing law versus mere allegations of “terrorism” by political actors or anticipatory compliance based on fear about how the law may be enforced in an overbroad manner.Legal counsel can help nonprofits undertake a more formal and thorough risk assessment and identify vulnerabilities a particular organization may have. For example, counsel can help a nonprofit determine whether their activities or services they provide could potentially be considered “material support” for a foreign terrorist organization or for terrorism.
UNDERSTAND EXISTING LEGAL PROTECTIONS. The First Amendment provides substantial protections for expressive and associational activity by individuals and organizations. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Humanitarian Law Project made clear that while providing “material support” to a FTO is criminalized, “independent advocacy”—even advocacy that aligns with or supports an FTO’s goals—is not. Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that “guilt by association” is “an impermissible basis upon which to deny First Amendment rights.” Federal criminal terrorism offenses also have intent or knowledge requirements, limiting the situations in which there is potential liability. Legal counsel can help organizations identify and understand these legal protections.
MAKE A PLAN. Nonprofits, with appropriate help from legal counsel, should create a plan to navigate relevant terrorism-related laws and create a tailored plan to reduce risk. This could include:
- Monitoring ongoing developments related to terrorism law and enforcement.
- Ensuring that the organization has processes or trainings in place to ensure it is not knowingly providing “material support” for any criminal activity that is a federal terrorism offense.
- Confirming that the organization complies with any relevant terrorism-related sanctions or other sanctions. For organizations working in environments with risk of engagement with FTOs or SGDTs, this may include setting up internal processes to check OFAC sanctions lists. GuideStar provides guidance for grant making organizations seeking to comply with counter-terrorism regulations. Companies like Electronic Verification Systems and FinScan provide list-screening and other compliance services.
- Organizations at heightened risk should prepare for a potential government investigation. Steps might include: Having a plan for how to respond, including how to communicate about the investigation with staff, funders, and the public; putting into place an appropriate document retention policy; and identifying in advance legal counsel with appropriate expertise.
CONCLUSION
Federal law contains an array of terrorism-related offenses, designations, and penalties that can be enforced against domestic actors, including among domestic civil society. Organizations should work with legal counsel to understand the legal landscape, assess potential vulnerabilities, and mitigate legal risk. Importantly, the Constitution places significant limits on the use of terrorism authorities, and the First Amendment provides strong legal protection for civil society’s peaceful speech, assembly, and association.
Further Reading
ACLU, How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists (2025)
Arnold & Porter, Precedent-Setting, Antifa-Related Foreign Terrorist Designations Amplify Risks for U.S. Tax-Exempt Organizations (2025)
Brennan Center for Justice, Trump’s Version of “Domestic Terrorism” vs. the First Amendment (2026)
Thomas E. Brzozowski, You Can’t Designate ‘Antifa.’ Banks and Platforms Will Act Like You Did Anyway (2025)
Charity & Security Network, The Prohibition on Material Support and Its Impacts on Nonprofits (2025)
Congressional Research Service, Domestic Terrorism: Overview of Federal Criminal Law and Constitutional Issues (2021)
ICNL, Evolving Threats to the Tax-Exempt Status of 501(c)(3) Nonprofits (2025)
Muslims for Just Futures, The Criminalization of Solidarity: A Practical Guide for Movements and Communities Navigating Material Support for Terrorism (MST) Laws (2025)
Patterson Belknapp, Administration Actions Targeting Domestic Terrorism and Their Implications for Nonprofits (2025)
For more information contact Elly Page (epage@icnl.org) or Lily Liu (lliu@icnl.org). Visit the U.S. Program page.
[1] There is no single, specific “Antifa” organization in the U.S., nor is there a national “Antifa” organization with chapters. While some local groups label themselves as “antifa,” more often individuals who self-identify as “anti-fascist” organize in loose collectives with no formal structure or leadership. See ACLED, Q&A: Antifa is not a single group. So what is it?, available at https://acleddata.com/qa/qa-antifa-not-single-group-so-what-it.
[2] 18 U.S.C. §2332b is a separate federal criminal statute that criminalizes certain violent acts or property damage within the U.S. that involves “conduct transcending national boundaries.” While the offense may not seem relevant to purely domestic activity, at least one circuit has read the jurisdictional requirement broadly, finding that email exchanges with someone outside of the U.S. constituted “conduct transcending national boundaries.” This explainer does not address 18 U.S.C. §2332b in detail because the federal government has brought relatively few cases using the offense, and those it has brought have generally involved international terror plots. See U.S. v. Wright (1st Circuit, 2019).
[3] Because EO 13886 contains the updated text of EO 13224, this guide will link to EO 13886 when referring to EO 13224 so that the reader can easily find the referenced language.
[4] Led by the FBI, JTTFs are interagency partnerships to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies. There are over 200 task forces nationwide, including at least one in each of the FBI’s 56 field offices. See, e.g. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/cleveland/news/fbi-joint-terrorism-task-force-turns-45.
This briefer was produced for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or substitute for legal counsel.
Sign up for our newsletters
Sign up