- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Alvarado Today
By the People, for the People
Right-Wing Think Tank Researcher Assisted in Crafting Antifa Terrorism Indictment
Testimony reveals close cooperation between federal prosecutors and the Center for Security Policy, a group labeled a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Published on Mar. 10, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A researcher from the far-right think tank Center for Security Policy assisted Justice Department prosecutors in developing the indictment for terror charges against an alleged 'north Texas antifa cell.' The charges stem from a protest that took place outside an ICE detention center near Dallas. The researcher, Kyle Shideler, stated he provided language used in the first-ever domestic terrorism case against a purported antifa cell, though he acknowledged the ultimate decision rested with the government.
Why it matters
The testimony reveals a potentially significant reliance on outside sources - specifically, a think tank with a clear ideological agenda - in building a domestic terrorism case. This raises questions about the objectivity of the prosecution and the potential for bias in the legal proceedings.
The details
Shideler, who has called for more aggressive action against left-of-center activists, conferred with prosecutors in October, one month before the indictment was obtained. Defense lawyers questioned Shideler's association with the Center for Security Policy, which has been labeled a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shideler disputed this designation, stating 'the Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled many people as a hate group.' The nine defendants face potential prison sentences ranging from years to life for a noise demonstration outside an ICE detention center.
- The demonstration took place on July 4 of last year.
- Shideler conferred with prosecutors in October, one month before the indictment was obtained.
The players
Kyle Shideler
A researcher from the Center for Security Policy who assisted Justice Department prosecutors in developing the indictment for terror charges against an alleged 'north Texas antifa cell.'
Center for Security Policy
A far-right think tank that has been labeled a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Frank Gaffney
The founder of the Center for Security Policy, who has been described as an Islamophobic conspiracy theorist.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman
A Donald Trump appointee who overruled defense attorneys' objections to Shideler's testimony as a government expert witness.
Southern Poverty Law Center
An organization that has labeled the Center for Security Policy as a 'hate group.'
What they’re saying
“I told them what I believed to be an accurate definition of antifa, and they used it.”
— Kyle Shideler, Researcher, Center for Security Policy (newsy-today.com)
“Yes sir, the Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled many people as a hate group.”
— Kyle Shideler, Researcher, Center for Security Policy (newsy-today.com)
What’s next
The testimony from Kyle Shideler is scheduled to continue on Tuesday, and it remains to be seen how the extent of the collaboration between the prosecution and the Center for Security Policy will continue to influence the proceedings and public perception of the charges.
The takeaway
This case highlights the potential dangers of relying on ideologically-driven outside sources in building domestic terrorism cases, as it raises concerns about the objectivity and fairness of the legal proceedings.

