Declaration of War on Democracy – How Trump Turns Trans People, Antifa and Democrats into the New Enemy Image

"Racially or ethnically motivated extremists carried out the most deadly attacks since 2010." The sentence appears inconspicuously on pages two and three of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-25-107030, pp. 2-3). A sober finding, backed by FBI data, undisputed in the official records. Anyone who knows these facts understands where the main danger lies: with white supremacists, militias, right-wing extremists. Donald Trump knows it too. But instead of seriously confronting this threat, it is deleted from strategies, systematically concealed, and replaced by a new enemy image.

Our research reveals how the government is trimming the security state to a line that no longer reflects reality, but an ideological agenda. Documents we obtained show that the 2021 strategy developed under Biden was abruptly stopped. In its place comes a new construct that targets not right-wing violence, but trans people, Antifa and increasingly also Democrats. DHS declared on March 18, 2025, that the GAO's recommendations were "inappropriate" because they had been "developed under the previous administration"; President Trump had designed a new strategy, which is why DHS asked GAO to consider the open points resolved (DHS Response, March 18, 2025). Translated, this means: it is not the threat situation that decides, but the will of the president.

The personnel decisions underscore this course. With Kash Patel at the helm of the FBI sits a man whose loyalty is not to the institutions, but only to Trump. Patel was previously a lawyer, staff counsel on the Intelligence Committee, briefly a senior Pentagon official - always in line with Trump's interests. Now he directs the most powerful investigative body in the United States. When he was asked in Congress in September what measures would be taken in the Charlie Kirk case, he spoke of a "spider web." They would investigate all contacts, far beyond the alleged perpetrator. In practice, this metaphor means: networks are charted, friendships and chat groups criminalized, entire milieus placed under general suspicion.

The political keywords come from above. Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, declared after Kirk's murder that trans people were bringing a "crazy ideology into our schools." Trump himself had spoken just days earlier of "transgender insanity." With such formulations, the direction is set: an individual case serves as justification for a general indictment of a minority. Sebastian Gorka, Trump's top anti-terror coordinator, published several posts about "trans shooters" shortly after the assassination. And Donald Trump Jr. summed up the new line in one sentence: "What is the greatest domestic terror threat: ANTIFA or TRANTIFA?" The catchword "Trantifa" - once only a marginal term in police bulletins - is now being spread as a fighting term by the highest levels.

Our evaluation of internal documents shows how flexible and dangerous the grids used for this purpose are. FBI manuals list "mobilization indicators" that are so broad that they can capture virtually anyone: foreign travel, contacts on social media, suspicious financial transactions, ideological statements. The observers are not only to be authorities, but also family members, employers, teachers, bank employees and social media users. Another paper lists "risk factors" that range from a history of violence to personal crises such as divorce or job loss. GAO explicitly warned: many of these factors "may involve constitutionally protected activities" (GAO-25-107030, p. 7). But that seems to be the point: a gray area that can be politically exploited.

Under Biden there had at least still been an attempt to direct these instruments at the demonstrably most dangerous milieus. Capitol rioters, militias, "Sovereign Citizens" were recorded in the category "Anti-Government Violent Extremists." Under Trump this label was deleted. In its place came the vague category "Nihilistic Violent Extremists." It is empty enough to be filled with any group. In practice this means: trans people and leftist activists can suddenly be classified as a "nihilistic threat." Euphemistically this is called "Gender Ideology Extremism" in the White House. The political function is clear: right-wing militias disappear from the grid, minorities move into the center. Particularly clear is the new line in the indictment against Tyler Robinson, the alleged murderer of Charlie Kirk. Three times it refers to trans issues: Robinson was "trans-rights oriented," a "biological man in transition," linked to "mass shootings by transgender individuals." These passages are legally irrelevant. But they serve a political purpose: they make trans identity part of the indictment. Already here one sees how language and justice interact to create a desired image.

GAO described these developments from another perspective. In its April 2025 report, it criticized that the 2021 strategy had "no clear risk assessment" (GAO-25-107030, p. 30), "no prioritization of goals" (GAO-25-107030, p. 31) and "no clear milestones" (GAO-25-107030, p. 33). DHS's response was unambiguous: it would not address these points because a new strategy was being developed. This reveals the political logic. What GAO identifies as weakness is for Trump an entry point. Gaps, unclear priorities, missing milestones - all this allows the threat situation to be redefined. Reality no longer determines where the focus lies, but the will of the government.

This fits with the selection of figures Trump places in key positions. Patel at the head of the FBI is not the neutral investigator, but a party soldier. Bondi as Attorney General is a loyal enforcer. Gorka provides the ideological accompaniment. And on the sidelines, but with growing influence, stands Laura Loomer. A woman who in the past has attracted attention with anti-Muslim tirades, conspiracy theories and aggressive rhetoric now has direct access to Trump's circle. Her proximity shows how blurred the lines have become between government and radical activism.

The spectrum of threats recorded by the FBI and Homeland Security ranges from racially or ethnically motivated violent offenders to militant government opponents to those who resort to radical means in the name of animal rights or the environment. Abortion issues are also considered fuel for extremist action - both among opponents of abortion and its supporters. Finally, there is a broad residual category for all other forms of domestic terrorism, in which personal grievances, religious beliefs or hostile attitudes toward gender and sexual orientation can turn into violence. As sober as these classifications appear, they nevertheless make clear how large the field of danger is - and how easily it can be shifted politically.

The practice that emerges from all this is extremely dangerous. With Patel at the top, the FBI pursues Robinson's environment far beyond the immediate contacts. Networks are inflated, chat groups scrutinized, friendships criminalized. The known protocols show no signs of a conspiracy, but that does not matter. The goal is not clarification, but construction of an enemy image. Patel himself spoke of investigating the "entire spider web" - an image that becomes reality in the structures of the security state.

Even more explosive is the logic with which the FBI and Homeland Security squeeze entire population groups into a grid. Internal manuals we were able to evaluate delegate the role of observers far beyond state investigators. Suddenly not only security authorities are supposed to be vigilant, but also neighbors, teachers, employers, bank employees or even social media users. The private environment is thus in effect made into an extended arm of the security state, a kind of silent denunciation network that penetrates deep into everyday life.

Even more diffuse are the so-called indicator types, by which everyday actions are constructed as potential threat scenarios. Financial transactions, foreign travel or even just close personal relationships can already be considered warning signals. Even thoughts and beliefs - the mere articulation of an ideology - are considered in the documents as potential precursors to violence. The line between legitimate political expression and criminally relevant extremism blurs so dangerously that it can be drawn practically at will.

The consequences are foreseeable. With the classification as "extremists," trans people, Antifa supporters and political opponents face not only social stigmatization, but also concrete state interventions: secret watch lists, travel restrictions, job problems, preventive arrests. GAO had already soberly pointed out that many of these risk factors "may be constitutionally protected" (GAO-25-107030, p. 7). This is where the danger lies: what is actually protected by the Constitution can in practice become the entry ticket to the surveillance apparatus - a politically exploitable loophole that reinterprets legal activities as indicators of extremism. That even uninvolved people, even tourists, can fall into the grid is due to the breadth of the indicators. Those who travel, who have online contacts, who attend events, can be associated. An innocent stay in the US can suddenly trigger surveillance if it falls into the wrong data constellations. This logic makes the system unpredictable - and therefore so dangerous.

"While right-wing extremists have appeared in the statistics for years as the greatest danger, they have little to fear in the United States under Donald Trump. The government deliberately blocks out this reality - and instead directs the security apparatus against minorities and political opponents."

The explosive nature of this development lies in the deliberate cover-up. Trump knows the data, he knows the statistics, he knows the GAO report. He knows that right-wing violence is the greatest threat. And he chooses not to fight it, but to make it invisible. This is not ignorance, but a political strategy. By deleting right-wing violence from the strategies, he protects his own base. By constructing new enemy images, he directs the security state against minorities and opponents.

Our research shows how this strategy works: the sober sentences in a GAO report, DHS response letters, FBI internal checklists, the statements of Patel, Bondi, Gorka and Trump Jr. - they add up to an overall picture that leaves no doubt. The government does not use the security apparatus to protect democracy, but to manipulate it. It replaces facts with constructions, law with ideology, security with politics of fear. It is a silent but fundamental declaration of war on democracy. Not with weapons, but with papers. Not through violence in the streets, but through categories in databases. And precisely because it comes across so inconspicuously, it is so dangerous. These papers contain a political agenda that does not seek protection, but the enemies needed to secure power. It is an attempt to reprogram the state - against its citizens, against its minorities, against its opponents. And it is this silent coup that we make visible with our research.