The nine suspected members of a Texas antifa cell standing trial on federal terrorism charges are deploying a familiar left-wing phrase that gained notoriety during the destructive antifa riots of 2020.
Attorneys for the defendants, accused of carrying out an assassination mission meant to murder Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel at a detention center in Alvarado, Texas, are framing the alleged July 2025 ambush as a mostly “peaceful protest” that just so happened to turn violent.
According to charging documents, more than a dozen heavily armed anti-ICE militants had descended on the site that night and opened fire from various vantage points.
The jury heard those competing narratives from the defense and federal prosecutors during opening arguments on Tuesday.
Laying out their respective legal strategies for the rest of the trial, Justice Department officials said the jointly charged co-conspirators sought to assassinate the security guards in an apparent terrorist attack, while the defendants insisted that they were simply protesting in support of the illegal immigrants detained inside the facility.
Lawyers for the alleged antifa operatives described the late-night event, which ended in the nonfatal shooting of a local Alvarado police officer who was called to the scene, as a “noise demonstration” that involved fireworks shot in the air as a show of solidarity.
Authorities said the fireworks were set off as a trap intended to lure law enforcement officers, responding accordingly to the disturbance, outside and into the line of fire.
“Make no mistake, there was nothing peaceful about what happened on July 4th,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith told jurors. “They weren’t there to protest ICE. They were there to make a statement.”
James Luster, one of the defense attorneys, said the group ignited the fireworks in question as a form of communication so that the ICE detainees could hear and know that they were not “forgotten.” Luster said his client saw detainees approach the facility’s window and smile in appreciation.
“They wanted the inmates to experience it with them,” Luster claimed. “It was supposed to be edgy. But it was not supposed to come to this.”
Lt. Thomas Gross, the injured Alvarado Police Department officer who was shot that evening by black-clad assailants, was the prosecution’s first witness called to testify.
Gross told jurors on Tuesday that he walked into what he believed to be an ambush at the time.
“I knew my life was in danger,” Gross said from the witness stand, according to NPR North Texas.
Footage from the police lieutenant’s body-worn camera and dashboard surveillance system was shown in the courtroom, capturing the chaotic moment when Gross answered a call for help at the ICE facility.
As he arrived, Gross said he saw at least two individuals dressed in all black, including one suspect with an AR-15-style rifle, running away.
Gross yelled at them to stop and “drop it.” Within seconds, someone could be heard shouting “get to the rifles” before a hail of gunfire knocked Gross to the ground. He was shot once in the neck, and the bullet exited through his back.
“It’s a day I’m going to have to live with for the rest of my life,” he said.
Cindy Harp, a contracted correctional officer who was guarding the facility, testified after Gross.
“All you hear is bullets going off, and you can hear [Gross] being shot,” Harp said, tearfully recounting the encounter. Harp has since left her job after nine years of service, she said.
The criminal proceedings follow a second round of jury selection due to a mistrial declared last week over one defense lawyer’s “politically charged” outfit choice during voir dire, a part of the jury-picking process in which legal counsel can ask questions to identify who to strike from consideration based on perceived bias.
MarQuetta Clayton, a Black Lives Matter activist and one of the case’s criminal defense attorneys, was accused of misconduct for what she chose to wear while questioning the first jury pool, as well as the statements she made mid-questioning.
Clayton’s shirt bore scenes of protests, images of civil rights leaders, and messaging about civil rights. She began her examination of potential jurors by emphasizing the constitutional right to protest and mentioning the death of civil rights icon Jesse Jackson that morning.
FIRST ANTIFA TERRORISM TRIAL RESTARTS FOLLOWING MISTRIAL: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee, said Clayton’s questioning style and accompanying attire could have potentially influenced the jury in favor of the defendants. In his decision to dismiss that slate of jury candidates, Pittman suggested that Clayton was trying to equate the defense’s side of the case with the civil rights movement.
Pittman had already admonished Clayton’s legal team for bringing a poster board to jury selection that juxtaposed scenes of seemingly peaceful protests with a fiery riot without informing the court or prosecutors.
On Monday, Pittman singlehandedly conducted jury selection himself. The judge recited questions on behalf of the attorneys, who were instructed to submit them beforehand.
The questions asked the potential jurors whether they had any negative or positive experiences with ICE, their opinions on antifa, if they had attended political protests in the past, and how they felt about the presence of guns at protests.
In a court order, Pittman also stipulated ahead of Monday’s jury selection that all people present are strictly prohibited from wearing graphic T-shirts and lapel pins. Pittman previously said he had been told that one of the defense attorneys was wearing an anti-ICE button during the initial jury selection session, though no attorneys admitted to the accusation.
Pittman made each attorney stand up so he could inspect their clothing before bringing in the jury pool.
The high-profile trial is widely seen as a test of the Trump administration’s promise to target antifa as a terrorist group.
As indicated in opening arguments and press interviews, the defendants appear poised to frame the prosecution as an attempt to criminalize dissent.
“This case raises serious constitutional concerns,” defendant Maricela Rueda’s sister, Diana Rueda, told reporters on Monday. “When protests are treated as terrorism, these protections are at risk for all of us.”
The defense is also denying that the suspects are members of an organized crime cell, let alone an antifa one.
“In America, we don’t prosecute people for being in association with other people,” one of the defense attorneys told jurors, saying his client “was there for the sole purpose of expressing her political beliefs, and in America, we don’t punish people for that.”
Several associates of the antifa faction, however, have openly admitted to their official membership or affiliation, confessing in sworn statements that they attacked the Alvarado facility “in line with [an] Antifa ideology” as “acts of terrorism.”
CONFESSIONS FROM TEXAS ANTIFA CELL OPERATIVES COULD PULL BACK CURTAIN
“Antifa is a militant enterprise that advocates insurrection and violence to affect the policy and conduct of the U.S. government by intimidation and coercion,” the convicted defendants acknowledged in affidavits as part of their plea deals.
While the nine defendants are all on trial together, the jury must decide each defendant’s guilt or innocence individually.
The trial is expected to finish by March 11.