They Protested ICE. Now They’ve Been Convicted of Terrorism.

From the New York Times, I'm Michael. Babaro. This is the Daily. [music]. >> Yes, we need the police to come out to. Perry Land Detention Center. I don't. know what's going on outside. They just. told me to call. >> On the night of July 4th, 2025, police. outside Dallas, Texas, get a call from. inside an ICE detention center. >> Okay. You don't know what's going on? >> No, sir. >> I think they doing fireworks. The caller reports that a small group of.

protesters has gathered outside the. center and are dressed in [music] black. >> They outside walking the perimeter. I. don't know, sir. >> Got [music] him. All right, we got him. in. >> Within minutes, a local police. lieutenant arrives at the scene. As he approaches the detention center, he sees somebody dressed in black. >> HEY, STOP. He exits his police car, draws his weapon.

>> He's running. >> GET ON THE GROUND. >> And is suddenly engulfed in gunfire. >> I'm hit. >> And he's hit with a single bullet. [music] in the shoulder. All of those facts are undisputed. But [music] what came next? It was a. planned ambush with the intent to kill. >> Was a prosecution unlike any in American.

history. >> That it is now the first time that the. FBI has arrested someone that the agency. has identified as Antifa aligned. anarchist violent extremists and. terrorism charges now as a result have. been brought. So that takes us to the. indictment itself. [music] Today, my. colleague Janet Wrightman on what she's. uncovered about [music] what's become a. defining legal case of the second Trump. presidency and the troubling questions. that it raises [music] about who now.

qualifies as a terrorist in America. [music]. It's Tuesday, October 27th. Janet, welcome back to the Daily. >> Thank you for having me. Good to be. back. >> So, you have covered national security. and extremism for decades. We call upon. you very specifically for that purpose. from time to time. You've reported on.

dozens of cases of domestic and foreign. extremism. So, what was it given that. about this particular case that really. struck you? So there were two things. that struck me about this case. The. first was that this was really the first. time that the federal government has. ever tried American protesters on either. the right or the left for terrorism. related charges. >> And it was also the first time that the. government has prosecuted what they call. an Antifa cell.

>> Right. Because we don't think of Antifa. as really having much of an organization. at all, let alone having cells. >> Exactly. There's no group known as. Antifa, right? The term has been used by. the GOP as a sort of catchall for the. left. And as you said, it's not an. organization. It isn't a group with. cells the way sort of al-Qaeda or ISIS. or some other foreign terrorist group. that we've heard of would have cells. It's a very loose decentralized movement. of left-wing activists whose ideology is.

kind of broadly anti-fascist. And that's. what Antifa stands for, >> anti-fascist. Antifa. And that's what. made this prosecution for me as somebody. who's reported on terrorism cases for. years shocking frankly. >> Well, we're going to get very deeply. into this prosecution and into the. government's decision to charge the. folks in this case as an Antifa cell. But let's just start with the very. basics of this case. You went and did a. lot of independent [clears throat].

reporting to try to understand who they. are, what motivated them. What did you. end up finding? >> So, I spent months looking through. documents, talking to a lot of people. who knew the protesters and even more. people who are just part of the larger. left-wing scene. And what I came to see. very quickly is that the place that this. happened in Dallas Fort Worth does not. have a sort of established protest scene. in the way that say a city like Seattle.

or Portland or New York or some other. sort of blue city frankly that have you. know really long histories of. progressive activism. >> Right. >> Dallas Fort Worth does not have that. >> which makes sense because it's Texas. It. wouldn't seem to be a hot bed of. leftwing activism. >> Exactly. And so what scene does exist is. more of a patchwork of people with. different interests or tendencies. So. you have like the self-styled anarchist. types, you have artists, you have LGBTQ.

activists, you have immigration. activists, you have, you know, a really. broad cross-section of people who care. about a variety of different social. issues who are left of center. >> And so just like many many people in. this world, they connect with people. online. And so that's where. [clears throat] the central meeting. place of this community is. And how is. it that people involved in this online. community end up gathering at this. detention center? >> So, the people I spoke to told me that. this had really been brewing for a. while.

Texas's conservative government and. legislature had been taking a series of. actions for several years that were. making a lot of liberals, especially. liberal activists, very, very fearful. They were restricting the rights of. trans people. They were cracking down on. abortion. and they were targeting. immigrants in all of these areas. They. were way in front of a lot of states in. this country. In fact, in some cases, they were at the front. >> Right. Texas's governor, Greg Abbott, was so proud of his immigration. crackdown. For example, he was literally. busing people out of state to.

Democratic. >> Yeah. He went around federal immigration. law to crack down. [music]. And so that is the backdrop for this. pivotal [music] moment that comes in. February of 2021. when Texas is hit by this massive. massive winter storm that plunges the. whole state into these like literally. sub-zero temperatures [music] and about. 5 million homes and businesses across. the state [music] lost power. And what. the state actually didn't do [music].

was warn people. They had a very weak. power grid. They knew it. They had known. it for about 10 years. [music] They had. never ever made an effort to fix it. And. what happened is you had hundreds of. people who literally froze to death in. their homes. [music]. So these activists who are already. feeling fearful and already feeling as. if the government doesn't care about. them or that the government could like.

try to legislate them out of existence. on some level now are connecting the. dots and feeling like, you know, oh my. god, we are genuinely at a crisis point. We're genuinely at risk. Our government. doesn't care if we live or die. This is. a very galvanizing moment for the. activists across Dallas Fort Worth, a. lot of whom start to realize that they. really need to learn survival skills and. how to protect themselves in case. something like this happens again. And. one avenue available to them was a group. called the Socialist Rifle Association. >> H not a group I have heard of.

>> The SRA is an organization that has cast. itself over the years as sort of the. progressive alternative to the National. Rifle Association. >> This is a national organization. So it. has branches around the country, but it. functioned in Dallas as a meeting place. for a lot of people who wanted to get. involved not just in learning how to. shoot guns, but in doing things like. mutual aid, you know, in doing like a. variety of projects that were all. reinforcing of a community and sort of. building community strength and. resiliency. >> So this scattered group of activists.

starts to find a home in SR. >> Yeah. Some of them they're gravitating. to people or groups that will make them. feel more in control. And one of the. figures who sort of represents himself. that way is a guy named Ben Song who was. a leader of the SRA. And Ben was a. professional activist. These are the. guys that are just everywhere. They're. at every protest. They're at the front. of every protest. Ben was a Marine, had. been in the Marine Corps, and he'd been. involved in the pro-democracy protests.

in Hong Kong. And this was a huge deal. within a community of very inexperienced. activists to have a guy who had gone to. a foreign country and had thrown himself. into these very famous and actually. quite violent protests. And so he had a myth about him. [music]. So Ben creates a group of people around. him who [clears throat] are all sort of. united in this [music] fear that.

something terrible is going to happen. And so they need to be prepared. They. need to know how to defend themselves. They need to know how to use a gun. >> And they need to be a little small. cadre, like a little army, right? They. need to be a tribe. >> And Ben is the unofficial leader of the. tribe. He is the expert within the. tribe. [music]. >> And they train at the range. Shooter. ready. >> Yeah. >> Target one. >> And he has [music] quite a few AR-15.

style rifles that he will lend or give. to people that don't have them. >> Six is down. Move. >> He [music] has offered to teach them. self-defense for free. You just practice. these at home. You're going to be able. to move your weapon administratively. much faster, engage much faster, much. more accurately. >> [music].

>> So all of this is going on for a couple. of years and it winds up building to a. head after Donald Trump is elected. because at that point. every fear within this community. particularly when it comes to people who. are trans or non-binary. and deportation of those who are of. Latino origin. Those fears are now becoming a reality. in their minds. So what do Ben and this.

group that he is essentially leading do. with these feelings of being under siege. now that Donald Trump is reelected? >> So Ben has created a signal group for. the broader activist community to share. their fears and anxieties. And by the. spring of 2025, we are seeing some big deal protests, anti-ICE protests happening in blue. cities like LA and Portland and Seattle.

And the Dallas activists are sitting. there and going, "We need to do. something like this." So, what can we do. that would be effective? and they come up with an idea that they. should do some sort of protest outside. of an ice facility. >> Mhm. >> And Prairie Land, which is a privatelyun. ice facility about an hour from Dallas. Fort Worth, becomes the place that they. think, well, maybe that would be a good.

place to go. It's called the Prairie. Detention Center. and Ben and some other. activists are on this private signal. chat and they're talking about doing a. noise protest on the 4th of July, which. they think would be this spectacular. moment of symbolism, right? They're. going to hold a protest on the day that. America celebrates freedom to show. solidarity with people who are detained. by the government. Mhm. >> And their idea is they're going to set. off fireworks outside of this ice. facility, Prairie Land, to remind the.

detainees that they haven't been. forgotten. At the same time as they're. having this conversation, Ben has another idea [music]. and he will bring that idea up at a. gathering that he's holding with about. [music]. six or seven activists at a house in. Dallas where he starts showing them. videos and pictures he's pulled off of. the internet of the Prairieland. Detention Center and he begins to point.

out, "Look at this guard shack. It's not. very well manned. Look [music] at these. video cameras. There's not that many of. them. They might not even be. operational. And all of this leads to him saying to. the group, "This is going to be as easy. as it gets.". >> Hm. What will be as easy [music] as it. gets? >> Exactly. So several people in the group. go, "What are you talking about? What?". And he goes, "Oh, we're going to take. the place and free the detainees.". >> Wow. we're going to take over a federal.

immigration detention center. >> How what are we going to shoot our way. in? What are we going to kill somebody? And he says, "Oh, no, no, no. We're. going to lay down suppressive fire. It's. just oppressive fire. It's a way to sort. of hold them back." And he doesn't. really explain much more than that as. far as we know. And the group is really. shocked by this. And they're like, "Oh, [music] oh, that sounds like a terrible. idea. We don't want to do that. >> That's not what we signed up for. >> That's not what we signed up for. And so. the conversation switches [music] to,

okay, well, what could we do? And so. they return to this idea of the noise. protest. and they decide, okay, we're just going. to do that. >> One person in the group says, so do we. still bring our guns? And Ben says, oh, definitely. [music]. >> With that, the evening ends and they, you know, go home. It's the night of and they show up at.

Prairieland. They park about a quarter. mile away on this quiet street. They've scoped this out. They're very. intent on making [clears throat] sure. that they're secure and making sure that. they're not identifiable. >> They are wearing black. They are wearing. masks. They have walkie-talkies to communicate. with each other and they're using. aliases which they always use. So the.

group gets to the intersection where. Prairie Land is and most of them hang a. left and they head off to this grassy. area that is right in front of the. window inside the facility where the. detainees might be able to come and look. and they start to set off fireworks. >> as planned. >> As planned. >> Just to be very clear, they're. approaching this, the vast majority of. them unarmed. >> Yes. There are a few important. exceptions, however, and one of them is. Ben. Ben has brought his favorite AR-15,

and so he's stayed a little bit further. down, sort of near the guard shack, to. keep guard. The rest of the group, they're setting off fireworks. They're. shouting espironza, which is hope in. Spanish. And you see at the window this. very long window inside the facility all. [music] these deninies lined up with. their faces pressed against the glass. They were obviously invisibly cheered by. this. One person in this group with the.

fireworks is a guy that nobody knew. [music] and starts heading towards the. parking lot [music] and has some spray. paint in his backpack and starts spray. painting the guard shack and some cars. [music] and writing like [ __ ] you pig. and traitor and [ __ ] Ice and things like. that. >> Not part of the plan. >> Not part of the plan. And it was also. something almost everybody was unaware. of.

Meanwhile, [music] inside the ICE. facility, the security guards are. hearing these fireworks and they're a. little bit [music] worried that. something might be hitting the building. or whatever. And so, two of them go out. to check out what's going on. They see. these fireworks going off. One of them. walks right up to the activists and. says, "Hey, you know what? You guys, it's time to go. You're on private. property. You got to go." And the. [music] group says, "Okay." Hm. >> And they start [music] packing up. You. know, they've kind of done their thing.

It's beginning to rain, so no more. fireworks are really going to get set. off at this point. And they take off. And [music] the security guard who had. told the group to leave, she and her. partner are starting to walk towards the. parking lot because they're hearing some. noises. They're hearing some breaking. glass. They're hearing some pop sounding. of like tires being popped. and she now. realizes, oh, there's some actual. vandalism going on. There's the spray. paint. And she calls the security desk. inside ICE and said, you need to call.

the police. So, at that point, we have a local. police lieutenant named Thomas Gross who. answers that call and he shows up in his. car alone without a partner and he sees. all this graffiti. All of a sudden, somebody all in black. runs in front of his car. He parks his. car, gets out, he shouts for this guy to. stop, and the next thing you know, Ben, who's wearing a green ski mask and has.

moved towards the parking lot area, begins to shoot. Lieutenant Gross claims that he did not. shoot first, but he returned fire. [music]. And there's a quick exchange of fire. In. that exchange, Gross is shot. [music]. >> So with the shooting of Lieutenant. Gross, everything changes, >> right? >> So Ben begins to [music] run away and.

another activist who is also walking. away sees him racing past him [music]. and goes, "What the [ __ ] did you do?". And Ben says, "Oh [ __ ] Oh [ __ ] Oh. [ __ ] Oh [ __ ]. and he [music] just drops his weapon and. disappears. And within a very short [music] amount. of time, all of these law enforcement. have arrived on the scene. >> Right. A cop has been shot and they want. to find everybody who might be involved.

>> Absolutely. And they start arresting. people. But [music] Ben evades capture. by hiding in the sunflowers, you know, in a field near the Prairand facility. [music] until about a day or so later, he's spirited away by some friends that. he contacted. And he spends the next two. weeks kind of on the lamb hiding [music]. in the home of one friend and then. another friend until he's finally. arrested. [music]. >> And once this very desperate group who.

are all there that night where this cop. is shot, once they're arrested, what are. they charged with? >> Initially, they were charged with. attempted murder. And Texas is a state. that takes a pretty aggressive approach. and had identified Ben as the shooter. And they identified the rest of them as. sort of the supporting cast that made. that shooting possible. And they had. identified this group as holding. anti-government views because of some. materials they found in their backpacks. and their cars. And so their perspective.

was this was a planned ambush of law. enforcement. and everybody is basically charged with. attempted murder and this is going to be. a conspiracy case. And they proceeded. with a case that was by many estimations. somewhat of an overreaction but at the. same time was pretty standard. I mean. they were able to use these laws to go. after them in a very punitive kind of. way. But then not long after this, the.

conservative activist Charlie Kirk is. killed. [music] And at that point, everything in this case changes. And let me tell you something I not. share with anybody, [music] but the last. message that Charlie Kirk gave to me was. he said that we have to dismantle. [music]. the radical left organizations in this. country that are fermenting violence. >> [music]. >> That was the last message that he sent. me.

We'll be right back. So, Janet, how does the assassination of. Charlie Kirk end up influencing the. course of this prosecution in Texas? So. Trump and members of his administration. have long blamed political violence in.

this country, not on the right, but on the left. And. they saw the Kirk assassination as like. the example of that. Here it is. Violence against a person that is widely. known to be a sort of lightning rod for. the left. And so with that, they see an. opportunity to declare war on the left. [music]. >> We are going to do what it takes to.

dismantle the organizations and the. entities that are fermenting riots that. are doxing, that are trying to inspire. terrorism, that are committing acts of. [music] wanting violence. >> And so officials like Steven Miller and. and JD Vance, vice president, really. laid out the rhetorical case for action. >> speech. No, no. We're going to go after. the NGO network that fermentss, facilitates, and engages in violence. >> President Trump's leadership. I don't. care how [music] it could be a RICO. charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy.

against the United States, [music]. insurrection. It has to stop. >> Within a few weeks of the Kirk. assassination, Trump had released. [music]. a couple of directives. The very first. one was he made an announcement [music]. initially on social media and then. >> believe it. These are anarchists and. agitators, professional anarchists and. agitators and they get. >> he released an executive order. designating Antifa as a terrorist. organization. Even though there is.

[music] no actual legal mechanism to. designate Antifa as a terrorist. organization in the same manner as. [music] the government does designate. foreign groups as terrorist groups. So. this is kind of a symbolic statement. >> Got it. [music]. And a few days after that executive. order, Trump sends out another directive. that directs law enforcement.

to aggressively pursue domestic terror. investigations into people who are. associated with what was described in. this document as anti-Americanism, anti-. capitalism, anti-Christianity, >> and extremism on immigration, race, and. gender. Interesting. >> And this memo specifically called on. prosecutors to seek the highest. penalties available and it also cites. anti-fascism as a key source of. political violence.

So what this means is that the Charlie. Kirk assassination has unleashed a kind. of revenge campaign on the left by which. the government has directed law. enforcement to invest a tremendous. amount of its resources into going after. people who hold these kinds of views and. to punish them to the highest extent of. the law. >> Okay. Once the president issues these. backto-back directives and there's this. new framework for thinking about the.

threat of leftwing activism, what ends. up being the impact on this Prairie Land. case? So, the US attorney, she was an. acting US attorney in Dallas, her name. is Nancy Larson, had for a long time. since she'd been appointed in the spring. of that year, in fact, been looking to. please the Trump administration. And. this is according to former prosecutors. And she saw this opportunity. She has a.

case involving the shooting of a law. enforcement officer, the defacing of a. federal building, and individuals who. are charged who believe in an. anti-government, anti-law enforcement, anti-Donald Trump ideology. She also has. in her hand a directive. from the justice department instructing. US attorneys to charge every case in the. highest most serious way possible. So. with these two things in mind, she.

decides to charge them with material. support for terrorism. [music]. So material support is a terrorism law. that's been on [music] the books since. the '90s. It became a sort of a go-to. for prosecutors who are looking to make. cases against supporters of al-Qaeda or. Hamas or any other foreign terrorist. groups because it could be used against. a very broad range [music] of. activities. >> Mhm. When it is used in a domestic. context, which it has been, [music] it's. usually used to go after people who have.

arguably provided support for what we. would all think is terror, [music] like. blowing up infrastructure or providing. the material to damage the power grid or. [music] something like that. >> And that's not uncommon. What is. uncommon is that it's [music] never used. against protesters. And the DOJ has made. a really big [music] point of avoiding. that. It's very close to treading on. speech, treading on the First Amendment, and [music] so to use it is kind of the. nuclear option,

>> but Nancy Larson decided to go for it. >> So, how does Nancy Larson use this. statute that is generally focused on. foreign terrorists on domestic. protesters? So there's a part of the law. that allows prosecutors to go after. individuals for what they call terrorist. acts. And the interesting thing about.

the way they charge these people and the. reason that they used this particular. law was because this part of the law. does not require you to be a member of a. terrorist group to think of yourself as. committing any act of terrorism. All it. requires is that you committed one of. the crimes that the government says can. be terrorism. >> And there are about 50 or so crimes, federal crimes, that could qualify as a. terrorist act. And ultimately Larson.

determined that there were three crimes. that would allow her to charge these. people with material support for. terrorism. So one of them was defacing. government property, which was. vandalism. The other one was setting off. fireworks that qualified as explosives. >> and the attempted murder of federal law. enforcement or someone coming to the aid. of federal law enforcement. The ICE. facility was manned by people on.

contract to the federal government. So. they qualified as some form of federal. law enforcement and Lieutenant Gross was. coming to their aid. So the shooting of. him qualified as the attempted murder. that could qualify as a terrorist act. >> So once this prosecutor breaks all kinds. of norms and files these charges in a. way that the Department of Justice has. long avoided, what happens once those. charges actually reach the courtroom. So. in February I went to Fort Worth to.

attend the trial of these at this point. it was nine activists. and. it's important to. know that it was prosecuted in Fort. Worth because Fort Worth is very. conservative and the two judges in the. Fort Worth federal courthouse are very. conservative. >> when the case open. So the onus is on. the government to prove that these. people did what they accuse them of.

doing, which is not just vandalizing a. building or shooting at a police. officer, but doing that for a political. purpose. That's what would make it. terrorism, right? And so in order to do. that, they must bring in their ideology, which under law you cannot prosecute a. person for. But you can bring an. ideology if it informs. the motive or the intent. >> Mhm. >> So the prosecution opens their case with.

sort of a spectacular story. of an Antifa cell that met on Signal, an. encrypted chat platform to discuss their. plans to attack this facility. and they. bring out. all the things that they consider the. evidence in this case. So they bring out. chat transcripts where they discuss the. protest and the planning. They bring out. into the courtroom all these guns, all. these AR-15s and photographs of weapons.

and they bring in the fact that Ben Song. and a number of the other activists were. members of the SRA, the Socialist Rifle. Association. Some were members of the. John Brown Gun Club, which is a much. more militant [music] kind of. organization. And they bring in the fact. that they had all these zenes and. [music] flyers and books. And one of the. most important parts of this case was. that a number of the activists were.

involved in an anarchist book group. called the Emma Goldman book club, which. was exactly what it sounds like. It was. a book club. And yet the government. considered the Emma Goldman book club to. be the recruiting ground for the Antifa. cell. >> So the prosecution is connecting a lot. of dots here and they say in our view. this is terrorism and this is Antifa. But I have the question of why so far in. our conversation and the way you've.

talked about this group of protesters. and what motivated them why you never. mentioned the word Antifa. So was there. any actual connection between these. activists and that idea that acronym? A. question was put to five activists who. plead guilty and were cooperators and. testified. about Antifa. Not one of them denied. that they held anti-fascist views. And.

in fact, some of them said, "Isn't it a. good thing to be anti-fascist?" Right? Don't we all hate fascism? None of them, however, identified as. Antifa in a sort of organized group way. And we've already discussed how Antifa. >> isn't really an organized group, >> right? >> And so on. One of the last days of the. trial, they call to the stand a guy. who's been sitting in the courtroom for. 3 weeks named Kyle Schneider. He is a. little known figure in the world of.

counterterrorism, but is a well-known. figure on the right as being an expert. on the Muslim Brotherhood and most. recently on Antifa. He's very fixated on. Antifa. And in September of 2025, right around the time that Kirk was. killed, he published an essay in a. right-wing magazine called How to. Dismantle Far-Light Extremist Networks.

And he described that as a road map for. countering radical left Ideologies and. Organizations. Among the roadmap. recommendations was for the justice. department to bring sedicious conspiracy. and material support for terrorism. charges. >> which is what happens. >> exactly. Kyle Shidler. >> creates the template for the prosecution. and then testifies for the prosecution. >> And not only that, he created the. definition of Antifa that the. prosecution used in its indictment and.

used in the trial. I mean this is highly. unusual for any civilian non DOJ. employee non- lawyer to be consulting. with the prosecutors on any wording of a. federal terrorism indictment any of the. wording. So Shidler is asked to. essentially identify what Antifa is and. what would be behavior that Antifa.

>> that's Antifa like right so he testifies. that wearing black block which is you. know the black clothing and the black. mask is both Antifaike behavior and. possibly could be connected to a. potentially violent intent. He testifies about the use of. walkie-talkies. He testifies about the. use of aliases. At one point, a point is. made that none of these people in their. signal chats ever talked about violence.

at all in any capacity. And he says, "Well, of course not, because that would. be a violation of security culture. Of. course, they would never do this. >> because we can't prove that you're a. terrorist. That means that you're a. terrorist." Has been used over and over. again. It's not circular. It's a very. circular logic. So when Shidler was. done, the government more or less rested. its case. >> So how does the defense respond to this? What what argument does it put forward. on behalf of the folks who are outside.

this detention center? >> So the defense has been challenging the. prosecution's argument every step of the. way. Their argument is that this was a. peaceful protest that went wrong. And so. throughout the trial, in. cross-examination, in their responses, they're constantly challenging this. narrative and saying, "I'm sorry, but. what you're saying here does not amount. >> to what you said. >> to what you said. It's just you're not. proving your case." So when the. prosecution rests, the defense rests. >> Was the defense right to think that they.

didn't need to put on much of a case. because the prosecution had failed to. persuasively make its case? No, >> they were wrong. >> They were wrong. And it took about two. days for the jury to find every single. one of those defendants guilty. They. weren't all guilty of attempted murder. Only Ben was found guilty of attempted. murder, but they were all found guilty. of material support for terror.

>> H the most provocative, the most unusual. of the charges. >> Right. And. two months after this, they are. sentenced. And the sentences were astonishing. [music]. >> What do you mean? >> Well, let's start with a man who wasn't. even at the scene that night. His name. is Daniel Sanchez Estrada. He's the. husband of one of the Prairie Land. protesters and he was charged and. convicted of concealing documents and. with his wife conspiring to conceal.

documents which turned out to be a box. of leftist pamphlets and other material. the police found in the trunk of his. car. >> He was sentenced to 30 years. >> Wow. his wife who was one of the people. who planned the protest. >> and was the sort of driver of wanting to. do a noise protest. >> She's a poet. She's a [music] a doula. and she was the one that shouted. espironza. >> Mhm. >> She got 70 years. >> Wow. Why 70 years?

>> Ostensibly because. >> no arms, no violence. not only no arms, no violence, she vocally opposed guns. She was the one that said, "I don't know. about guns. That could make the. situation more hot." But she was heavily. involved in planning this protest. And. so the planning is what made her a. potential terrorist. And the other. sentences were just as harsh. Most of. the others in the group got 50 [music]. years.

Can you just put these sentences into. some perspective for me? >> Interestingly enough, most people who. are prosecuted for material support for. terrorism in this country receive under. 10 years. >> I mean, these are the kinds of sentences. that you would get if you were the. leader of a drug cartel that you would. get if you were a member of the mafia. high level. These are high level leaders.

of drug cartels or mafiosas or. >> responsible for untold numbers of. deaths. >> Untold numbers of deaths for extreme. extreme violence. >> And no one was killed here. >> No, no one was killed. And I should say. that Ben Song, who shot at Lieutenant. Gross, was given a sentence of a hundred. years. And Lieutenant Gross's injury was. relatively minor. He was not. hospitalized. as he went to the. hospital, was treated, and was released. in about an hour. >> So, how integral was the charge of.

material support for terrorism to the. astonishing length of these sentences? >> It certainly enhanced the length of the. sentences. But I think what was integral. to these sentences was the belief. system. Because even though the prosecution. could not prosecute them for their. ideology and could only bring in their. ideology to suggest their intent, the.

judge who sentenced them could use the. ideology to impose these extremely long. sentences. And one of the judges in fact. reportedly said during sentencing that. he was imposing these sentences as a. deterrent to other people who might. share this ideology. Hm. Jen, how should. we think about this case and its. outcome? Should we think of it as an. outlier because it was the first of its. kind? because every element of it seems.

so specific, including the fact that it. was tried in a very conservative part of. the country where I have to imagine the. jury may not have been particularly. sympathetic to the defendants or should. we view it as a really important. template for how the government starts. to treat protests and ideologies that it. doesn't like as terrorism.

I don't even think this was an. unsympathetic jury. There were jurors. who argued vocally in the jury room to. the point where people heard them having. a very spirited debates about this case. when they came in to deliver their. verdict. I think at least one of the. jurors had been crying and seemed very. distraught. But once they were confronted with these. undisputable facts, they were really in. a bind because the government had.

essentially said to them, "These facts. make these people terrorists.". >> So in a sense, once these charges were. brought, this jury was boxed in. >> Yeah, I think so. In this case, one of. those acts of terror was vandalism. Vandalism under many, many, many, many. other circumstances is simply vandalism. And so that was the bind that the jury. found themselves in. They were looking. at crimes that were fairly minimal aside.

from the shooting of a police officer. But when it becomes an act of terror, now you're in a different category. And. so that's how you find a group of. activists, most of whom don't have. criminal records of any sort. going to prison for 30, 40, 50, 70, 100. years. >> Mhm. And that outcome feels totally. inextricably linked to the Trump. administration's decision to articulate. this idea that leftwing activism and.

activists. should be seen as terrorism. I'm just. thinking back to that original executive. order that. >> you mentioned much earlier in our. conversation where the president was. ticking through all the forms of. activism that he wanted to treat as. domestic terrorism and they're all. viewpoints that he disagrees with. >> absolutely. >> anti- capitalism, anti-Christianity, extremism on immigration. And that inevitably raises the question.

if the president right now wants to in a. certain sense. criminalize protest that he doesn't like. which happens in this moment to be. leftwing activism. Who's to say that the next president. won't criminalize the activism of the. right or the middle? Who knows? I mean, how much is that a real risk? >> That's a real risk. I think that's a. real risk. I mean, I think that there's. so there's a line that prosecutors use,

bad facts make bad law. And what that. means, so what that means is that you. have a. a fact in your case that makes your. case, if you're a defense attorney, kind. of loable, right? You have a fact that. looks bad. In this case, it was the. shooting of a police officer. You you. cannot minimize. >> that a police officer was shot, >> right? Once you did that, that opens up. a huge can of worms. And that's the.

thing that initiates this permission. structure. Without the shooting of the. police officer, I'm not sure these guys. would have gotten prosecuted. Maybe not. at all, but certainly not in the way. that they were. >> But with the shooting of the police. officer, where you have an undisputed. act of violence, that allowed the. government to basically say, "Well, see, they are terrorists. See, they are. violent. here's political violence. Let's charge them all as violent. terrorists. And where that makes bad law.

is that if it is not somehow overturned. in an appeals court, which at the moment. it's very uncertain what will happen. That bad law can be applied to anybody. So as long as you've created a. permission structure to go after people. that you disagree with based on your. belief that their ideology. is dangerous, then anybody can use that same template. to go after a different group of people.

So while this was used against the left, four years or 5 years from now, it could. easily be used against the right. This. is the kind of case that January 6th. arguably based on everything that. occurred could easily be called a. terrorist incident. There were a million. things that people did in on January 6th. that qualified, but they weren't charged. in that matter. And then they actually. walked out of prison after a very short.

amount of time. But if there's something. similar like that happened in another. administration, they could go after all. of them and make it a a serious serious. situation where people would be. sentenced to 4050, >> right? And suddenly we have a system. from the top on down, the president on. down where terrorism is in the eye of. the beholder. And that is not something. we've ever had. That's not a tradition. we have legally in this country. Terrorism is supposed to be terrorism. The idea that terrorism is in the eye of. the beholder is. the danger.

in declaring a war on terror. [music]. As somebody who's been reporting on it. for a long time, this is [music]. why. anyone who has been involved in. prosecuting terrorism, in [music]. working in law enforcement, they understand that that once you. declare a war on terror, [music] which. is actually a war on fear in a lot of. ways, right? Weaponizing that, you're. weaponizing your fear. You're.

weaponizing. your dehumanization of your enemy. [music]. When you can do that, that cannot be. stopped. [music] That could mean you're. a radical supporter or what somebody. says is a radical supporter of literally. anything [music]. as long as you can find the construct to. brand it as terrorism. >> And that's what we did with Prairieland. [music]. And I think this is a dangerous corner. that we've turned in this case.

[music]. Well, Janet, thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you so much for having me. [music]. [music]. Janet Wrightman's new book is about the. hidden costs of the US war on terrorism. [music]. The book entitled The Inheritance: An.

American Tragedy in [music] Five Acts. was published earlier this month. [music]. [music]. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need [music] to. know today. On Monday, the artificial. intelligence giant Anthropic offered. [music] the most detailed look inside.

its finances to date when it filed. paperwork to soon become a publicly. traded company. [music]. The documents reveal that Anthropic's. revenue has skyrocketed in the first. half of this year to more than [music]. $16 billion, a 14fold increase from a. year earlier. But the company's debt. [music] has surged as well. Anthropic IPO expected [music] next. month could value the company at up to. $2 trillion. That would make the 5-year-old [music].

startup one of the most valuable. companies in the world. Today's episode was produced by [music]. Austa Chhaturved and Jack Didoro with. help from Alex Stern and Eric Krupky. It. was edited by Michael [music] Benois. with help from Chris Hel and Rob Zipco. Contains music by Brad Fischer, Marian. Lozano, Alicia, [music] Dan Powell, and.

Rowan Demisto. And was engineered by. Alyssa Moxley. Our theme [music] music. is by Wonderly. [music]. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael. Aborro. See you tomorrow.