So the media continues to bend over backwards to avoid the overtly political nature of the murders of Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson — as President Trump has taken the step of “designating” Antifa as a terrorist organization.
So now: Will we see federal terrorism charges against groups intent on committing political violence on the home front? And shouldn’t we have a regime wherein Tyler Robinson and Luigi Mangione face terrorism charges at the federal level?
We should. But not by simply “designating” domestic groups as terrorists. Here’s how it could work.
As background: the way the federal law is structured now, only foreign groups can be designated as “terrorists.” The fear among legislators has been — and remains — that the ability to designate a domestic group as being “terrorists” could be used as a cudgel by both sides of the political aisle.
But as one of our favorite columnists outlined here, there is a safer way forward. What we need is a structure wherein the courts/juries determine whether particular violent acts are terrorism based on the actual criminal intent and the harm caused — not by politicians “pre-labeling” groups.
The model for how to do this already exists, and has already survived legal scrutiny — that is, in federal hate crime charges. Simply put, there are violent acts that qualify as “crimes-of-hate” if they are directed against certain groups, on the basis of race, religion, etc.
Whether you agree with hate crime statutes or not — they remain on the books. So why not apply the same model to terrorism?
Here’s how it would go. First, there would be a list of various crimes that qualify as potential “terrorism.” These would be either violent felony-level activity or the support/funding of such activity.
Then, when charging that crime, the prosecutor would have to allege terroristic intent. And that’s it.
In light of Robinson and Mangione, let’s use Murder as an example. If the prosecutor can demonstrate that the crime was committed to “influence government policy or the civilian population” (the federal definition of terrorism), the crime would then be labeled “Murder As A Crime Of Terrorism.”
Typically, the prosecutor would charge both regular “Murder,” and also the “Murder As A Crime of Terrorism.” If the judge decides there is not enough evidence for the “terrorism” charge, he can knock it out right at the beginning of the trial process.
If the charge survives the judge, the prosecutor has to then prove the whole shebang to a jury — not just the Murder charge, but the terrorist intent.
This, in fact, is how New York State’s terrorism laws are structured — and it works. A state judge, in fact, just knocked out the terrorism piece in the Mangione case, but the regular Murder charge survives.
A good way to think about it is as an aggravating factor for sentencing: being convicted of a crime of terrorism would come with enhanced sentencing parameters, thereby demonstrating the egregiousness of such crimes committed on the home front — but hopefully taking the politics out of the mix.
Is there still potential for politicization here? Sure. But there always is in the criminal justice system. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy.
But is it any more foolhardy than witnessing events like the murders of Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson — and pretending they were not committed for political purposes?
It’s past time to stop lying to ourselves. We have a domestic terrorism problem — and yes, it is coming almost exclusively from the left.
Time to charge it so.
Does Trump’s “Designation” of Antifa Matter?
When Donald Trump called Antifa a “terrorist organization,” of course the left’s “fact checkers” rushed in: Actually, Mr. President, the U.S. doesn’t designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations.
And that’s accurate—at least in the narrow legal sense. Unlike Al-Qaeda or ISIS, you can’t slap a “designated terrorist” sticker on a domestic outfit. There’s no statutory switch to flip.
But here’s the thing: Trump’s move wasn’t about technicalities. Was it political? Sure. But it was also about reality. And the reality is that America has a domestic terror problem, and Antifa is Exhibit A.
Antifa isn’t just a bunch of edgy college kids in hoodies. It’s an ideology with a track record: arson, violent assaults, organized street riots, entire city blocks reduced to burned-out shells. When you torch courthouses and terrorize neighborhoods, you’re not a “protester.” You’re a thug with a political mission. That sure sounds a lot like terrorism to us.
So while Trump’s “designation” doesn’t give prosecutors new tools or change the law, it does something else important: it forces recognition. It drags the issue of homegrown extremism into the spotlight where it belongs, and demonstrates how cowardly the left’s pundit class has been in covering for these thugs. Because pretending Antifa is just a meme or a “myth” (as Jerry Nadler once claimed) is like pretending gravity is optional—you can say it, but eventually you fall on your face.
And forget the argument that Antifa doesn’t actually have “members.” Members of ISIS and al Qaeda don’t carry membership cards, either. Yet the cases get made.
If nothing else, Trump’s move underlines the need for better domestic terrorism laws (see above).
Until then, Trump’s symbolic swipe at Antifa may not carry legal weight. But it carries cultural weight. And sometimes that’s what starts the real shift.
Something You’re Not Hearing Re: The Charlie Kirk Assassination
Right now, the narrative regarding Tyler Robinson has coalesced around the idea that he did what he (allegedly) did according to what’s laid out in his text messages to his roommate/lover. The reporting is that those texts, along with forensic evidence, will form the basis of the case against him, as he is not cooperating with law enforcement and has not confessed.
But we feel compelled to ask: Is that entirely accurate?
Consider: Robinson was convinced to turn himself in by his family so as to avoid any potential injury to himself — at which point he went to the local Sheriff’s office, who was presumably alerted to all this ahead of time to make sure things went smoothly.
So then, when Robinson showed up — why did he say he was there?
One has to imagine that, in order to demonstrate why he was presenting himself to the Washington County, Utah Sheriff’s Office, he had to say something like, “I’m the guy you’re looking for” (at the least).
And according to this — the Washington County Sheriff’s Office has body worn cameras as standard equipment.
So: Did they ensure that the bodycam was running when Tyler showed up? And thereby capture his initial incriminating statements?
If so — there may indeed be a confession in the bag already. Making this case even more of a slam-dunk.
How About Enforcing the Gun Laws We Already Have?
In light of the ongoing rash of random gun violence, questions continue to arise regarding America’s gun laws. And there is no shortage of misinformation out there.
Let’s recognize up-front: the Second Amendment is not without limitation; there are dozens of federal firearms laws in the code. “Shall not be infringed” is not the absolute maxim many believe. Federal legislation already exists to keep guns from certain citizens: convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, drug users, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged military, and the severely mentally ill.
Consider: Mental illness in adults aged 18-25 has increased from 18% in 2009 to 29.4% in 2019. Those numbers are much higher since the COVID pandemic. It is estimated that 36.2 adults 18-25 had a mental illness by 2022.
None of the restrictions on gun ownership are more relevant now than the statute on the severely mentally ill. Title 18 USC 922 makes it illegal to sell or give a firearm to anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older.” Perhaps this portion needs strengthening—it wouldn’t have stopped the Minneapolis shooter, who was never “adjudicated” or “committed,” yet was clearly unfit to have guns.
Still, before debating stricter laws, we should enforce those already on the books. Currently, the Trump Administration is expected to reduce ATF employees who inspect firearms dealers, cutting inspections by about 40%. We cannot say exactly how this affects investigations of false statements on purchase applications (Form 4473), but it certainly won’t help.
To be fair, it’s not like the feds were ever serious about prosecuting such cases anyway. From 2008–2015, only 32 people were prosecuted for lying on the form—out of nearly half a million denied purchases. In 2017 alone, 112,000 purchases were denied, but only 12 people were charged. The government doesn’t even know how many lied about mental illness; we could find just one recent case.
We don’t know how effective stronger enforcement of false-statement laws would be—but the current level is so low it provides no answer. ATF should send a clear message: lying on the form means arrest. Not a cure-all, but at least a start.
Sunday Pod: A Conversation With Brianna Lyman
Join us for a conversation with Gen Z member Brianna Lyman, writer for The Federalist and ubiquitous television commentator.
More than any other demographic, Brianna and her generation were tuned in to Charlie Kirk’s thinking and message. It’s what made Charlie such a threat to the left. Imagine Charlie running for President 12 years from now and you have some idea of how much radical progressives feared a guy who came with a built-in voter base of that size.
But Charlie is, tragically, gone. How is Gen Z taking the loss of one of their heroes? And who is going to carry on that legacy?
You can find Brianna’s writings here, and her X account by clicking the image below.
Click the below for the sizzle reel — and HERE for the whole thing.
Brianna and those like her are speaking up for our collective future — as did Charlie. We need more of them.
The left ignores people like this at their own peril.
Kimmel, Colbert, And Subsidized Leftism
So about a month ago, we dropped the below post regarding Colbert, Kimmel, et al. Once again: If you’ve been reading The Ops Desk, you’d be out ahead — because according to recent credible reporting (and sourcing of our own), Kimmel’s cancellation notice was upcoming long before his terribly insensitive remarks regarding the death of Charlie Kirk.
So to reiterate the mystery from last month: How on earth do government-bestowed broadcast licensees that lose tens of millions a year stay on the air?
We reprint the original post below, with updated stock charts:
We Feel Compelled To Ask….
In light of the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show, which was losing upwards of $40-50 million-per-year, we have to ask a serious legal question (yes, legal): Why are Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver still on the air?
Kimmel’s show rates significantly lower than Colbert’s. Further, while Colbert reportedly makes $15 million annually, Kimmel reportedly out-earns him at $24 million yearly.
Oliver, whose ratings don’t even break 350,000, makes $1 million per episode — with his seasons averaging between 20 and 30 episodes per year.
What? John Oliver makes 20 to 30 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR for a show that doesn’t break 350,000 viewers? (For context, Colbert averages roughly 2.5 - 3 million viewers each night. And Oliver’s show is only a weekly).
Is there ANY way these shows make that money back for the parent company?
Now the legal part. Kimmel airs on ABC, whose parent company is Disney. Oliver’s network, HBO, is owned by Warner Brothers. Both parent companies are publicly traded.
Which means: The boards of both those firms have a well-settled fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
So: Why has no shareholder brought suit against either of these companies for continuing to air shows that likely lose millions?
For background, here’s the Disney five-year stock chart:
And here’s the Warner Bros. five-year stock chart:
Not pretty.
Meanwhile, Greg Gutfeld continues to eat their collective lunch — especially when you factor in the 57% ratings-bump he just provided the far-less political Jimmy Fallon….
What on earth?
Why is it that only the left manages to fail upwards?
Memphis Blues
So crime again is down in Washington, DC. As the left’s complaints get more vague and more conspiratorial, the streets in the nation’s capital are undeniably safer. Troops have not taken over the Capitol Building, protestors aren’t being gunned down, the military hasn’t arrested the Mayor….. the Republic still stands.
The National Guard in D.C. is in fact a small deployment. There were more soldiers in New York City subways at Governor Kathy Hochul’s direction than there are in DC (1,000 in NYC vs 800 in DC). The National Guard in DC is not as invasive as past Guard deployments in Ferguson, Baltimore, or Minneapolis, to name a few.
Further, Guard members are not actually making arrests or booming doors and executing search warrants. What they are doing is serving as a visible presence of law-and-order, thereby preventing crime before it happens and freeing up the Metropolitan PD.
The result is safer streets and less chaos. Since Trump announced the federal assistance for Washington DC in August 11, 2025, crime has plummeted. As of September 12th, violent crime in Washington is down 42.5%. Robberies are down an incredible 62%. Overall crime is down 20%.
So when Trump offers similar assistance to a failing city like Memphis… city officials will jump on it, right?
Let’s review. Memphis isn’t huge—just over 600,000 people—but it’s an important city. Headquarters to FedEx, International Paper, and AutoZone, it’s a major transportation hub, the home of Elvis, and birthplace of the Blues.
It’s also drowning in crime. In 2023, Memphis set a record with 397 homicides. For comparison, New York City had 386 that year—with 13 times the population. That’s terrifying.
And Memphis feels terrifying. Beale Street, once a music mecca, is closed off and heavily patrolled. Step outside the cordons and you risk your life. Businesses are leaving, the population is shrinking.
City officials claim crime is down this year, but Memphis (conveniently) doesn’t release up-to-date stats like most cities (it might literally be beyond the city’s capabilities). Regardless, the latest numbers show that crime remains well above the national average. In 2024, Memphis had the highest crime rate in the nation and the 3rd highest homicide rate. Not a recipe for success.
Yet recently, city leaders responded coolly to Trump’s offer of help. Memphis Mayor Paul Young rejected National Guard deployment, asking instead for federal money for “rehabilitation, mental health services, jobs, and housing.” Right. We’re sure that money would’ve been distributed to great effect.
Shelby County (where Memphis is located) Mayor Lee Harris was less coherent, railing against “occupation, armored vehicles, semi-automatic weapons, and military personnel in fatigues,” and calling for new gun laws. A reminder: every Memphis cop already carries a semi-automatic pistol. If you don’t know what that is, you shouldn’t be shaping crime policy.
Locals have had decades to fix this problem and failed. Crime is rampant, MPD has been both ineffective and brutal, city leaders even rejected a federal consent decree. Tourists are being shot. Add Memphis to the “nutjob archipelago” of failing U.S. cities run by Democrats.
It’s time to let Trump and the feds in, just as they did in D.C. Take a cue from Elvis: “A little less conversation, a little more action.”
An Unintended Benefit
So a small (very small) drama is occurring in downtown Manhattan these days, as various New York City public officials -- including some tied to likely next mayor Zohran Mamdani -- got themselves arrested by federal agents for attempting to barge into the ICE holding facility there.
Among them is Brad Lander, currently NYC’s Comptroller, himself a failed mayoral candidate. Lander has been all over Mamdani, publicly supporting him in hopes, no doubt, of a Deputy Mayor gig (it is doubtful that Lander could manage significant employment in the private sector).
In all, 11 local and state officials were arrested — all fellow travelers of Mamdani, no doubt.
It’s all performative, of course, but here’s why it should matter. This space advocates prosecuting all of them to the fullest extent — including felony obstruction, where applicable.
Why? Because we assess that AOC is the Dems’ presidential candidate for 2028 — and many of these same ignorant performance artists will be looking for federal jobs.
And felony federal convictions should keep them from being eligible for security clearances — thereby keeping them away from positions that could cause us even more harm.
So DOJ — go all the way on these. And spare us these clowns in the future.
And finally….
Follow the money, DOJ, follow the money….
Under this proposal, I could see Alvin Bragg charging Trump with terrorism charges, a judge allowing it, a jury convicting, and a NY judge sentencing it.