A federal jury handed prosecutors a mixed victory in the trial of nine protesters for their roles during or after a chaotic demonstration outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility last July, convicting eight defendants of terrorism charges but sparing some of them on attempted murder counts.
The widely watched trial could serve as a bellwether as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to crack down on left-wing groups — and the convictions could encourage prosecutors to bring more such charges. A top FBI official said in December that the agency is now treating “antifa” as a major domestic terror threat.
In a statement posted online, a support group for the defendants said, “Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: this is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top.”
The Trump administration celebrated the verdict.
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities — not under President Trump,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The court case centered on a nighttime July 4, 2025, protest outside ICE’s Prairieland Detention Facility that started with demonstrators shooting fireworks and spray-painting cars in the parking lot.
Signal messages obtained by the government showed that the demonstrators believed that less confrontational protests against ICE — such as one that had occurred earlier in the day at the same facility — were ineffective. Some of the protesters had brought guns, which is legal in Texas. A police officer responding to the scene was shot in the neck by one of the protesters, Benjamin Song, who had brought an AR-15 with a trigger modified for a higher rate of fire.
The defendants said the protest was a peaceful demonstration meant to show solidarity, pointing to the megaphone that one member of the group brought to shout slogans to detainees. Prosecutors pointed to the guns, ballistic vests, and trauma first-aid kits they brought as evidence of malicious intent.
Song was convicted of one count of attempted murder for shooting the officer, but acquitted on two other counts of attempting to shoot at two correctional officers. Song was also found guilty of discharging a firearm during a violent crime. Four other people accused of attempted murder counts were acquitted on those charges. Song faces up to life in prison.
In a significant victory for the government, jurors convicted eight defendants on material support for terrorism charges for wearing black clothes to the late-night demonstration. That use of “black bloc” clothing was an antifa tactic that assisted in the shooting of the officer, prosecutors said during their closing arguments.
The defendants convicted of providing material support to terrorists were Song, Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Savanna Batten, Megan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, and Ines Soto. They face up to 15 years in prison on that count.
The same defendants were also convicted of riot and two explosives charges related to the fireworks. Hill, Evetts, Morris, and Rueda were acquitted on attempted murder charges that would have carried sentences up to life imprisonment.
Rueda and her husband, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, were convicted of conspiracy to conceal documents. That charge centered on Sanchez’s movement of boxes containing radical pamphlets after her arrest. Sanchez was also convicted of corruptly concealing a document.
The prosecution of the Prairieland defendants represented the federal government’s first use of the material support charge against alleged antifa members accused of domestic terrorism.
The verdict came after 10 days of testimony inside a Fort Worth courtroom packed with family members of the defendants, law enforcement officials, and journalists.
Prosecutors called the wounded police officer and detention center guards to describe what it was like on the receiving end of a barrage of bullets, as well as four cooperating defendants who pleaded guilty before trial.
Another significant witness was a researcher at a right-wing think tank who said the tactics used by the demonstrators that night, including “black bloc” clothing and the encrypted messaging app Signal — the latter of which the witness said he also used — were typical of antifa.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
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
Midterms 2026
Crypto Spends Big in Illinois House Races to Say Consumer Rights Supporters Are Corrupt
A crypto PAC smeared one progressive backed by Bernie Sanders as a “corporate pawn” and spent millions calling another a tax cheat.
In the Room Where Death Row Prisoners Say Final Goodbyes, He Learned He Would Live
I was supposed to witness Sonny Burton’s execution by nitrogen gas. Instead, I saw him celebrate a stunning commutation.
Voices
Why Dems Keep Saying Trump Has “No Plan” Instead of Calling to End the War With Iran
By rallying behind process-based critiques, the Democrats are refusing to stand against the war on moral grounds.
Facts Only
A federal jury convicted eight of nine defendants on terrorism charges related to a July 4, 2025, protest outside the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas.
The protest involved fireworks, spray-painting, and firearms; one officer was shot in the neck by Benjamin Song, who used an AR-15 with a modified trigger.
Song was convicted of attempted murder for shooting the officer and of discharging a firearm during a violent crime.
Four other defendants were acquitted of attempted murder charges.
All eight convicted defendants were found guilty of material support for terrorism for wearing "black bloc" clothing, which prosecutors argued aided the shooting.
The defendants also faced convictions for riot and explosives charges related to fireworks.
Maricela Rueda and Daniel Sanchez Estrada were convicted of conspiracy to conceal documents involving radical pamphlets.
The trial is the first federal use of material support charges against alleged antifa members.
The Trump administration celebrated the verdicts, with Attorney General Pamela Bondi calling antifa a "domestic terrorist organization."
Defense supporters described the trial as politically motivated persecution.
The case included testimony from the wounded officer, cooperating defendants, and a right-wing researcher linking the protesters' tactics to antifa.
*The Intercept* framed the trial as part of a broader authoritarian trend under Trump, citing attacks on press freedom and democratic norms.
Executive Summary
A federal jury delivered mixed verdicts in the trial of nine protesters involved in a July 4, 2025, demonstration outside an ICE detention facility in Texas. Eight defendants were convicted of terrorism-related charges for wearing "black bloc" clothing, which prosecutors argued facilitated violent acts, including the shooting of a police officer. Benjamin Song, who fired an AR-15, was convicted of attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a violent crime, while four others were acquitted of attempted murder charges. The case marks the first federal use of material support for terrorism charges against alleged antifa members, reflecting the Trump administration's broader crackdown on left-wing groups. The trial featured testimony from law enforcement, cooperating defendants, and a right-wing researcher who linked the protesters' tactics to antifa. The verdicts were celebrated by the administration as a step toward dismantling antifa, while defense supporters condemned the trial as politically motivated persecution.
The article also includes a fundraising appeal from *The Intercept*, framing the trial as part of a broader authoritarian trend under Trump, citing attacks on press freedom and democratic norms. The outlet positions itself as an independent counterbalance to corporate media and right-wing influence, urging readers to support its reporting.
Full Take
**Steelman:** The strongest version of this narrative highlights a legitimate legal and security concern: the use of coordinated tactics (e.g., "black bloc" attire, encrypted communication) to obscure identities and facilitate violence during protests. The conviction of Benjamin Song for shooting a police officer underscores the real dangers posed by armed confrontations. The Trump administration’s framing of antifa as a domestic terror threat aligns with a broader law-and-order agenda, and the jury’s verdict suggests some credibility to prosecutors’ arguments about premeditated intent.
**Pattern Scan:** The article blends reporting with advocacy, particularly in *The Intercept*’s fundraising appeal, which employs emotional exploitation (ARC-0012 Fear Appeals) by framing Trump’s actions as an "authoritarian takeover" without nuanced evidence. The prosecution’s focus on "black bloc" clothing as material support for terrorism risks semantic manipulation (ARC-0031 Overbroad Definitions), stretching legal interpretations to criminalize symbolic protest tactics. The right-wing researcher’s testimony could reflect borrowed credibility (ARC-0041 Appeal to Authority), leveraging think-tank affiliation to lend weight to partisan claims.
**Root Cause:** The paradigm here is the weaponization of legal systems to suppress dissent under the guise of counterterrorism. The unstated assumption is that antifa’s tactics inherently signal violent intent, eliding distinctions between symbolic resistance and actual harm. This echoes historical patterns like COINTELPRO, where state power targets ideological opponents by conflating protest with terrorism.
**Implications:** The verdict sets a precedent for prosecuting protest tactics as terrorism, potentially chilling free speech. The Trump administration benefits politically by positioning itself as tough on "domestic terror," while left-wing groups face heightened surveillance and legal risks. Second-order consequences include normalized use of terrorism charges against activists, eroding civil liberties.
**Bridge Questions:**
1. How might this case reshape the legal boundaries between protest and terrorism, and what safeguards could prevent overreach?
2. If "black bloc" attire is deemed material support for terrorism, what other symbolic acts (e.g., masks, slogans) could be criminalized next?
3. Does the media’s framing of this as an "authoritarian crackdown" obscure legitimate concerns about protest violence, or does it rightly highlight state overreach?
**Counterstrike Scan:** A coordinated influence campaign would amplify the trial as proof of a "leftist insurrection," using selective facts (e.g., the officer’s shooting) to justify broader suppression of dissent. The actual content partially aligns with this pattern—prosecutors and Trump officials frame the case as a victory against domestic terror—but *The Intercept*’s counter-narrative complicates the picture. The article doesn’t fully match a bad-faith playbook, as it includes critical perspectives and factual reporting. However, its fundraising appeal leans into partisan framing, which could undermine its credibility with skeptical readers.
Patterns detected: ARC-0012 Fear Appeals, ARC-0031 Overbroad Definitions, ARC-0041 Appeal to Authority
Sentinel — Human
The article shows strong signs of human authorship, particularly in its editorial sections, with natural stylistic irregularities and emotional emphasis. No significant indicators of synthetic generation were detected.