A researcher at a far-right think tank helped Justice Department prosecutors craft their indictment for terror charges against an alleged “north Texas antifa cell,” the researcher testified Monday. The charges were brought in relation to a protest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center outside Dallas.
Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy said under questioning from a defense attorney that he provided language that prosecutors used in the first-ever domestic terrorism case against a purported antifa cell.
The decision to use the language was the government’s, Shideler said.
“I told them what I believed to be an accurate definition of antifa, and they used it,” Shideler said.
The courtroom testimony provided a window into the extraordinarily close cooperation between federal prosecutors and a Washington advocacy group that has regularly argued for government action against left-wing activists.
Shideler himself was the author of a September article titled “How to Dismantle Far-Left Extremist Networks: A Roadmap for the Trump Administration” that called on the Justice Department to take more aggressive action against left-of-center activists. He said he conferred with prosecutors in October, a month before they obtained an indictment in the Texas case.
Defense lawyers raised questions about Shideler’s professional home, the Center for Security Policy. The nonprofit think tank was founded by Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Department official under President Ronald Reagan who has routinely been described as an Islamophobic conspiracy theorist. Gaffney’s views on Islam are commonly espoused at Center for Security Policy events.
The center itself has been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation Shideler bristled at in court.
“Yes sir, the Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled many people as a hate group,” he said in response to questioning from defense lawyer Phillip Hayes.
The nine defendants on trial this month face years or life sentences in prison for a noise demonstration outside ICE’s Prairieland Detention Center on July 4 of last year.
After demonstrators used fireworks in a show of solidarity for the detainees held inside the Alvarado, Texas, facility, local police arrived to confront them. One of the responding officers was shot in the neck.
Shideler testified as an expert witness for the government over the objections of defense attorneys, who were overruled by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee.
In lengthy testimony, he provided a recounting of the history of antifascist organizing that ranged from 1930s Germany to 1980s U.K. activism to the present-day United States. Various tactics used by the Prairieland demonstrators to protect their identities — such as Signal chats, “black block” clothing, and a general “security culture” — were all consistent with antifa practices, Shideler said.
Under questioning from prosecutors, Shideler sought to tie the ideas laid out in anarchist zines recovered from the defendants’ possession with their actions outside the detention center.
Several cooperating defendants have testified that they did not consider themselves members of antifa, defense attorneys pointed out during cross-examination.
They also went on the attack over Shideler’s professional qualifications and his conclusions. Shideler acknowledged that he does not use academic social science methods, does not submit his research for peer review, and relies largely on open-source materials whose authenticity is difficult to verify.
Shideler called Signal a “hallmark of antifa” before adding that he uses it himself.
The antifa trial is Shideler’s first time testifying as an expert witness in a trial, he said. One defense lawyer noted that Shideler was invited to testify about antifa before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October and asked whether his courtroom appearance this week would provide a further boost to his career.
“I guess it will depend how it goes,” he said.
His testimony is set to continue Tuesday.
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.
This is not hyperbole.
Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.
Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.”
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
I’M BEN MUESSIG, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
Latest Stories
Voices
It’s a War With Iran, Not an “Intervention”
Elected officials desperately want to cast our war with Iran as an “intervention” or “operation.” Don’t let them get away with it.
With World's Eyes on Iran, Israel Locks Down the West Bank
The Israeli military has closed checkpoints around the West Bank, restricting Palestinians’ movement as settler violence ramps up.
Targeting Iran
U.S. Military Refuses to Endorse Trump Claim That Iran Bombed Girls’ School
“It would be inappropriate to comment given the incident is under investigation,” CENTCOM told The Intercept.
Facts Only
Kyle Shideler, a researcher at the Center for Security Policy, testified in court on Monday about his role in assisting Justice Department prosecutors with an indictment against an alleged "north Texas antifa cell."
The charges relate to a July 4, 2023, protest outside the Prairieland Detention Center, an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas.
Shideler stated he provided prosecutors with language defining antifa, which they used in the indictment.
The Center for Security Policy, where Shideler works, was founded by Frank Gaffney and has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Nine defendants are on trial, facing potential life sentences for their involvement in the protest, during which fireworks were used and a police officer was shot in the neck.
Defense attorneys questioned Shideler’s credentials, noting he does not use peer-reviewed methods and relies on unverified open-source materials.
Shideler testified as an expert witness for the government, over defense objections, and described antifa tactics, including the use of Signal and "black bloc" clothing.
Some cooperating defendants have testified they do not consider themselves antifa members.
The trial is presided over by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee.
*The Intercept* included a fundraising appeal, describing a broader political context of authoritarian threats, press suppression, and corporate media complicity under Trump.
Executive Summary
A researcher from the Center for Security Policy, Kyle Shideler, testified in court that he assisted Justice Department prosecutors in drafting language for a domestic terrorism indictment against alleged members of an "antifa cell" in North Texas. The charges stem from a July 4, 2023, protest outside an ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas, where demonstrators used fireworks and one officer was shot in the neck. Shideler, whose organization has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, acknowledged providing prosecutors with a definition of antifa, which they incorporated into the indictment. Defense attorneys challenged Shideler’s qualifications, noting his lack of peer-reviewed research and reliance on unverified open-source materials. The trial involves nine defendants facing severe sentences, with cooperating witnesses testifying they did not identify as antifa. The case highlights the controversial collaboration between federal prosecutors and a far-right think tank with a history of advocating for aggressive action against left-wing activists.
The article also includes a fundraising appeal from *The Intercept*, framing the current political climate as an authoritarian threat under Donald Trump, with attacks on press freedom and democratic institutions. The publication positions itself as an independent counterbalance to corporate media and right-wing influence, urging readers to support its investigative journalism.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative exposes a troubling intersection of federal prosecution and partisan advocacy, where a researcher from a far-right think tank—one with a documented history of promoting anti-left and Islamophobic rhetoric—directly influenced the language of a domestic terrorism case. The defense’s challenges to Shideler’s methodology and credibility are valid: his lack of academic rigor, reliance on unverified sources, and admission that he uses Signal (a tool he labels a "hallmark of antifa") undermine his authority. Yet the prosecution’s decision to lean on his testimony, over defense objections, suggests a willingness to weaponize ideological framing in legal proceedings. This aligns with broader patterns of politicized law enforcement, where labels like "antifa" are deployed to criminalize dissent, regardless of individual defendants’ self-identification.
The deeper implication here is the erosion of institutional neutrality. When federal prosecutors collaborate with advocacy groups pushing aggressive crackdowns on political opponents, the justice system risks becoming an extension of partisan warfare. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of the Center for Security Policy as a hate group adds another layer: the government is effectively outsourcing its legal reasoning to an organization with a documented bias. This isn’t just about one trial—it’s about normalizing the use of ideologically charged expertise to justify state repression. The *Intercept*’s framing of Trump’s authoritarianism, while hyperbolic, taps into a real anxiety: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, political activism, and media manipulation.
What’s missing? A clearer examination of whether the defendants’ actions—noise demonstrations, fireworks—actually meet the legal threshold for domestic terrorism, or if the "antifa" label is being used to escalate charges. Who benefits from this framing? Prosecutors gain a narrative of existential threat; the far-right think tank gains legitimacy; and the defendants face disproportionate penalties. The second-order effect is a chilling message to protesters: even peripheral associations with radical movements can lead to life-altering consequences.
Bridge questions: If the defendants didn’t identify as antifa, does the label still apply legally? How does the Justice Department’s reliance on partisan-defined terminology affect the fairness of prosecutions? What safeguards should exist to prevent ideological advocacy from shaping criminal cases?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would exploit this trial to amplify fears of "antifa violence," using selective framing to justify broader crackdowns on left-wing activism. The actual content partially matches this pattern—Shideler’s testimony and the prosecution’s adoption of his language serve to legitimize the "antifa threat" narrative. However, the inclusion of defense challenges and *The Intercept*’s critical framing mitigates full alignment with a pure propaganda playbook. The most concerning element is the institutional collaboration itself, which lends state power to a partisan agenda.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (vague definitions of "antifa" used to criminalize broad behavior), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (narrow legal charges expanded into broader ideological threats), ARC-0012 Authority Games (borrowed credibility from a think tank with questionable expertise).
Sentinel — Human
The article shows strong human authorship signals, including erratic structure, passionate framing, and specific attribution, with no detectable AI-generated patterns.