A researcher from a far-right think tank assisted Justice Department prosecutors in developing the indictment for terror charges against an alleged “north Texas antifa cell,” according to testimony given Monday. The charges stem from a protest that took place outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center near Dallas.
Kyle Shideler, of the Center for Security Policy, stated under questioning from a defense attorney that he provided language used in the first-ever domestic terrorism case against a purported antifa cell. Shideler clarified that the ultimate decision to apply the language rested with the government.
“I told them what I believed to be an accurate definition of antifa, and they used it,” Shideler said.
The courtroom testimony revealed close cooperation between federal prosecutors and the Center for Security Policy, an advocacy group that has consistently called for government action against left-wing activists.
Shideler conferred with prosecutors in October, one month before the indictment was obtained in the Texas case. Defense lawyers questioned Shideler’s association with the Center for Security Policy, founded by Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Department official described as an Islamophobic conspiracy theorist. Gaffney’s views on Islam are commonly presented at events hosted by the Center.
The Center for Security Policy has been labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation Shideler disputed in court, stating, “Yes sir, the Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled many people as a hate group.”
The nine defendants currently on trial face potential prison sentences ranging from years to life for a noise demonstration outside ICE’s Prairieland Detention Center on July 4 of last year. The demonstration involved fireworks and was held in solidarity with detainees held inside the Alvarado, Texas, facility. Following the demonstration, one responding police officer was shot in the neck.
Shideler testified as a government expert witness, despite objections from defense attorneys, which were overruled by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee. His testimony included a historical overview of antifascist organizing, and he asserted that tactics used by the demonstrators – such as Signal chats, “black block” clothing, and a general “security culture” – were consistent with antifa practices.
Shideler also attempted to connect ideas found in anarchist zines recovered from the defendants with their actions at the detention center.
Several cooperating defendants have testified that they did not identify as members of antifa, according to statements made during cross-examination by defense attorneys. Shideler acknowledged he does not employ academic social science methods, does not submit his research for peer review, and relies heavily on open-source materials of questionable authenticity.
Shideler stated he uses Signal, despite calling it a “hallmark of antifa.” This is Shideler’s first time testifying as an expert witness in a trial. He was also invited to testify about antifa before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October, and a defense lawyer questioned whether his current courtroom appearance might benefit his career. Shideler responded, “I guess it will depend how it goes.”
His testimony is scheduled to continue Tuesday.
Frequently Asked Questions
What charges are the defendants facing?
The nine defendants face potential prison sentences ranging from years to life for their involvement in a noise demonstration outside ICE’s Prairieland Detention Center on July 4 of last year.
Who is Kyle Shideler?
Kyle Shideler is a researcher at the Center for Security Policy who testified that he provided language used in the indictment against the alleged “north Texas antifa cell.”
What role did the Center for Security Policy play in the case?
The Center for Security Policy’s researcher, Kyle Shideler, assisted Justice Department prosecutors in crafting the indictment, indicating a close working relationship between the two entities.
As this case unfolds, will the extent of the collaboration between the prosecution and the Center for Security Policy continue to influence the proceedings and public perception of the charges?
Keep reading