An interview with criminal defense attorney John Helms on the July 4th terrorism charges
The Justice Department’s recent announcement of terrorism charges against two men described as “Antifa members” has generated significant attention from the Trump administration, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling them “historic” indictments. But according to Dallas criminal defense attorney John Helms, a former federal prosecutor, there’s less here than meets the eye.
What Exactly Is Antifa?
Before diving into the charges, it’s crucial to understand what Antifa actually is—and isn’t.
“Antifa is really more of an ideology than an organization,” Helms explains. The term, short for “anti-fascist,” refers to a loose movement of individuals who oppose fascism, racism, and oppression. Unlike traditional organizations, Antifa has no formal structure, no leadership hierarchy, no bank accounts, and no membership rolls.
“If you tried to do an interview with the head of Antifa, there wouldn’t be one,” Helms notes. Instead, individuals who identify with anti-fascist ideology coordinate primarily online, organizing protests and counter-demonstrations against groups they perceive as right-wing extremists, neo-Nazis, or organizations like the Proud Boys.
The July 4th Incident
The indictments stem from a violent incident on the evening of July 4, 2025, at an ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, near Fort Worth. According to allegations:
- A group of people arrived at the facility late in the evening
- They began shooting fireworks toward the ICE building, allegedly to lure out agents and guards
- When a local police officer responded to a 911 call, someone hidden in the bushes shot the officer in the neck
- The officer survived, but the violence prompted federal terrorism charges
The Charges: Nothing New Under the Sun
Despite the political fanfare surrounding these indictments, Helms emphasizes that the charges themselves are routine. “Really, in a general sense, no,” he says when asked if there’s anything special about the case. “The indictments cover crimes that have been crimes for decades.”
The two defendants face seven counts:
- One count of material support of terrorism (up to 15 years)
- Three counts of attempted murder of federal officials or those assisting them (up to 20 years each)
- Three counts of discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence (mandatory minimum of 10 years each, stacked consecutively)
If convicted on all counts, the defendants face potential life imprisonment.
The Antifa Angle: Politics Over Law
Here’s the critical point: the defendants were not charged with being members of Antifa. Their alleged membership in what the indictment calls an “Antifa cell” is not an element of the crimes they must be proven guilty of.
“They were not indicted because they were members of Antifa,” Helms clarifies. “They were indicted for the violent acts that they’re accused of committing.”
The material support of terrorism statute doesn’t require membership in a designated terrorist organization. It simply requires involvement in preparing for or committing specific crimes classified as terrorism, such as attempted murder of federal officials or destruction of government property.
So Why Emphasize Antifa?
If Antifa membership isn’t legally relevant, why does the indictment repeatedly reference it? Helms identifies two motivations:
Political messaging: President Trump and his administration have made cracking down on Antifa a priority for their conservative base. “I think that it plays to the supporters of President Trump to suggest that he is cracking down on Antifa,” Helms observes—even though the criminal complaint used to arrest these individuals didn’t mention Antifa, and the underlying statutes predate Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
Jury influence: The case will be tried in Fort Worth, Texas, known for politically conservative juries. “It’s possible that if a charge talks about Antifa, even if it’s not something that needs to be proved, that jurors in Fort Worth may automatically associate Antifa with terrorism because of their political beliefs,” Helms suggests.
Trump’s Terrorist Designation: Legally Irrelevant
Shortly before the indictments, President Trump formally declared Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. But this designation has no bearing on the criminal charges.
The alleged conduct occurred before the declaration, and more importantly, the charges themselves existed long before. “The crimes that the government has charged these people with have been on the books for a really long time,” Helms emphasizes, “many years long before President Trump declared Antifa to be a domestic terrorist organization.”
The Bottom Line
What the Trump administration has portrayed as a historic breakthrough in combating domestic terrorism is, according to Helms, “a run of the mill case that any administration would have pursued because of the violent acts of these people.”
The violence at the ICE facility was serious and the charges appropriate. But the emphasis on Antifa appears to be more about political messaging than legal necessity. The defendants will be tried for what they allegedly did—shooting at law enforcement and attempting murder—not for their political ideology or informal associations.
As Helms puts it: “I think really the main motivation for this is publicity for the Trump administration and their supporters.”
Whether the jury in Fort Worth will see past the political framing to focus solely on the evidence of violent criminal acts remains to be seen. But legally speaking, the Antifa angle is window dressing on what would otherwise be a straightforward prosecution of alleged violent criminals.
John Helms is a criminal defense attorney in Dallas, Texas, and former Assistant United States Attorney. His practice focuses on federal and state criminal defense in the Texas area.