Rep. Gooden Calls for DOJ Probe Into National Lawyers Guild’s Alleged Antifa Ties

Rep. Gooden Calls for DOJ Probe Into National Lawyers Guild’s Alleged Antifa Ties

A Texas Republican, Rep. Lance Gooden, has requested a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), alleging that the group’s activities extend beyond legal support for rioters and may involve supporting Antifa extremists. His request comes amid the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on Antifa-affiliated groups, which the president has labeled a ‘domestic terrorist organization.’

In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Gooden claimed that the NLG’s support for Antifa extremists may pose a ‘direct physical threat’ to civilians and law enforcement. The National Lawyers Guild, which has provided legal defense for rioters following Black Lives Matter protests, has been accused of actively campaigning against measures aimed at preserving order and law. Gooden cited social media posts by independent reporter Andy Ngo, who suggested NLG members were present at ICE facilities in Portland, potentially aiding Antifa-affiliated violence.

Meanwhile, the FBI has described Antifa as a decentralized ideology, not a precise organization. Critics argue that this lack of structure makes it difficult to combat effectively. FBI Director Kash Patel recently confirmed that Antifa is a real group and has launched investigations into its funding and organizing activities. The DOJ has also indicted individuals accused of belonging to an ‘Antifa Cell,’ with charges of terrorism-related activity, including a violent attack on an ICE detention center in Texas.

The National Lawyers Guild, which identifies as progressive, stated that it does not use donations to fund Antifa, arguing that the term refers to an ideological stance against fascism rather than a tangible group. However, Gooden argues that the NLG’s actions, such as opposing prison systems and advocating for the abolition of punitive measures, support extremist activities. This case highlights the ongoing debate over free speech and the limits of law enforcement intervention, with legal advocates warning of potential First Amendment violations under the Trump administration’s policies.