Video: John Helms – Understanding Antifa Podcast

John Helms | 00:00

Hi, my name is John Helms. I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Dallas, Texas. I’m a former assistant United States attorney in Dallas known as a federal prosecutor. And my question is, Practice today focuses on all kinds of federal and state criminal defense in the Texas area.

So this past week, The Justice Department announced the indictment of two men on terrorism charges, and they were accused of being members of Antifa. And the head of the FBI, whose name is Kash Patel, and the… The Trump administration. Claimed that these were very historic events. Indictments. Because they were indictments relating to Antifa.

So that’s going to be the subject of our discussion today.

Interviewer | 01:01

Can you explain to us what exactly is Antifa?

John Helms | 01:05

Yes, Antifa… Is really more of an ideology than an organization. Antifa is a shortened form of Anti-fascism. Fascist. And their ideology is that they oppose what they see as fascism, racism, and other types of oppression of individuals. I say it’s an ideology more than an organization because they have a common beliefs but they don’t really have any type of organizational structure They don’t have bank accounts. They don’t have a president or a vice president or officers. They mostly get together online and get together and decide to take actions like protesting or in some cases confronting protesters. For example, if there is a right wing protest or right wing march. Like, or neo-Nazis or the Proud Boys or something that they are very much opposed to, they may get together online and decide to meet up and to march against those people and confront them and even engage in violence with those people if they’re provoked. But if you tried to do an interview with the head of Antifa, there wouldn’t be one. And so they don’t have any type of formal structure. They have beliefs in common and they get together to take actions when they want, but there’s not a hierarchy like many groups. You know, organizations, political organizations.

Interviewer | 03:02

Was there really anything special about these indictments?

John Helms | 03:07

Really, in a general sense, no. The indictments Cover crimes. That have been crimes for decades. These people were accused of violent activity, and they’re being prosecuted for that violent activity. And the statutes, the criminal laws that they are being accused of violating have been on the books for years. So there is nothing particularly special about the criminal charges here at all.

Interviewer | 03:42

Can you tell us about what happened that led to this indictment?

John Helms | 03:47

Yes, what happened that led to this indictment was that on the evening, the late evening of July 4th of 2025 this year, a group of people. Went to an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, which is near Fort Worth. And that’s a place where a lot of people who are detained by ICE are kept. They went there in the night. They started shooting off fireworks toward the ICE facility. The allegation is that was to lure out ice, agents and guards.

And then when a local police officer responded to a 911 call, someone in the bushes apparently shot that local law enforcement person in the neck. Fortunately, I mean, he survived. But there was a lot of violence. And so, I mean, obviously, crimes were committed. And they’ve been charged as terrorism because of the nature of the violence, which is directed toward ICE agents. Its facilities and its personnel.

Interviewer | 05:06

Were these two men indicted because they were members of Antifa?

John Helms | 05:11

No, they were not indicted because they were members of Antifa. They were indicted for the violent acts that they’re accused of committing. Whether or not they were members of Antifa is not something that has to be proven to show that they were guilty of the crimes that they were charged with. Specifically, they were charged with, material support of terrorism, and they were charged with destruction of government property, and they were charged with attempted murder, and they were charged with discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.

So they were not charged with being a member of a group. They were charged with the actions that they are accused of committing.

Interviewer | 06:05

President Trump very recently declared Antifa to be a terrorist organization. Did that have anything to do with these charges?

John Helms | 06:14

Know the conduct heard long before President Trump declared Antifa to be a domestic terrorist organization. They were charged by complaint. Complaint long before that. And the charges themselves do not have to do with specifically with being members of Antifa as being a crime. It’s important to understand that for the crime of material support of terrorism from within the United States, You don’t have to be a member of an organization or an entity that’s been declared a terrorist organization. All you have to do. You have to be involved in preparing for or committing one of a long list of crimes that are considered crimes of terrorism. And being a member of an organization is not one of them. In this case, these two men were charged with the underlying crimes of attempted murder of a federal official and with destruction of government property in a government building.

So, those are statutes that have been on the books. They have nothing to do with what entity or organization you’re a part of. And so, that’s not something that the government’s going to have to prove at trial.

Interviewer | 07:45

The indictment in this case talks a lot about Antifa. It refers to these two men as being members of an Antifa cell. Why would the U.S. Government want to make that part of this criminal case?

John Helms | 07:57

Well, I think the reason that the US government would want to make Antifa a part of the criminal case is twofold. First of all, politically. President Trump and his administration have, I think, tried to gain political points by telling their supporters that they are going to crack down on Antifa, which many conservative and right-wing people believe is kind of a boogeyman. And so I think that it plays to the supporters of President Trump. To suggest that he is cracking down on Antifa. Even though being in Antifa is not something the government has to prove in this case. And even though the criminal complaint that was used to arrest these people doesn’t say anything about Antifa, and even though the crimes that the government has charged these people with have been on the books for a really long time, many years long before President Trump declared Antifa to be a domestic terrorist organization.

So I think gaining political points for President Trump’s supporters is probably the primary reason. In addition, I suppose that you could make an argument. This case, by the way, is in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas. And I’ve tried cases in Fort Worth. And I know that juries in Fort Worth tend to be politically conservative. And so 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. And so that maybe that will help the government’s case. That’s another possibility. But I think really the main motivation for this is publicity for the Trump administration and their supporters. And we can see that because of how they’ve tried to portray this as a historical indictment when really it’s a run of the mill case that any administration would have pursued because of the violent acts of these people.

Interviewer | 10:26

Could you please describe the specific charges these men are facing?

John Helms | 10:30

Yes, the specific charges that these men are facing, there is one count. Of material support of terrorism. Bye. And. For that, the government has to prove that they were supporting one or more of a list of crimes that have been identified as crimes of terrorism.

So in this case, they were material, they’re alleged to have been materially supporting two types of terrorism crimes. One is attempted murder of a government official, and the other is destruction of government property.

So those are two crimes that the law defines as terrorism crimes, and so they’re accused of materially supporting those two crimes. Then… There are. Three counts of attempted murder. Of federal officials or people assisting federal officials.

And then there are. Three counts of, of discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.

So those are the specific crimes that they’re being charged with in this indictment.

Interviewer | 11:45

What type of sentences will they face if convicted?

John Helms | 11:49

Well, the types of sentences that they will face will include for the material assistance of terrorism count, they can get a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years, For each of the attempted murder counts, they can get up to 20 years, and then for the discharging of the firearm for each of those counts, they will get at least 10 years of stacked on top of all of the other counts of conviction. So, when you add it all up, if they’re found guilty of everything, I mean, they’re looking at life in prison, potentially.

So, there are seven different counts, each one has different sentencing ranges, but If they’re all added up, it’s going to be a very long time. 

John Helms | 12:48

Well, I want to thank everybody who’s joined us. This is John Helms. I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Dallas. And next time, we’ll be talking about more important criminal justice issues, and I hope you can join us then.