President Donald Trump announced last month on Truth Social that he would designate Antifa as a “major terrorist organization.” His move followed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which the alleged shooter etched Antifa-linked slogans onto bullet casings.
The announcement was overdue. But it isn’t enough. The deeper problem lies in the way far-left ideology has wormed its way into America’s universities. For more than a decade, Antifa sympathizers in higher education have used their influence to normalize radical tactics and ideology.
Studying radical groups is not the problem. The problem is activist educators who weaponize academic freedom.
Hiding behind “academic freedom,” these activists have seized positions of authority, cloaked propaganda as scholarship, and worked to sanitize Antifa’s record of violence. Their work not only whitewashes street-level thuggery but also lends intellectual credibility to other radical movements.
In the fall of 2020, Rutgers University’s Rutgers Today gave Professor Mark Bray a glowing profile. Bray, author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” softened Antifa’s image by claiming the movement simply wants to “change the world dramatically.” He insisted its “strategic focus” is to shut down the far right and “protect progressive social movements.”
That framing wasn’t neutral scholarship. It was spin. Bray is a proudly outspoken leftist. His book is an apology for and encomium to Antifa’s “direct action” tactics.
Across the country, courses that elevate Antifa are now showing up in university catalogs. They are not taught as dispassionate examinations of an ideology. They are taught by activists who share the movement’s goals.
At the City University of New York, an English course titled “Global Antifa” promises to explore “antifascist traditions” and link them to “racial justice, anti-imperialism, intersectional feminism, and critiques of capitalism.” In practice, the course serves as movement training, rather than academic analysis.
Over the summer, video from the Socialism 2025 conference revealed the professor behind the CUNY course openly endorsing a boycott of the fossil fuel industry. Other footage showed a Seattle University law professor calling on activists to “break laws and rules” to hide people from ICE and “the cops.”
Their classrooms mirror their activism. A review of one law professor’s 2019 “Race and Law” syllabus confirmed the bias. The reading list included Bray’s “Antifa Handbook,” a comic book glorifying Antifa, Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility,” and a stack of pro-Palestine and pro-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions tracts.
Unfortunately, pro-Antifa materials are not confined to graduate seminars. They have also seeped into undergraduate classrooms.
At Harvard, the Department of Government offered a course titled “#Abolish Police.” The syllabus included Bray’s book and assigned a unit on solidarity with the BDS movement and the Palestinian cause.
Rutgers went even farther. A 2018 sociology course openly declared its aim: to study the “rise and success” of resistance movements like the Black Panther Party, Anonymous, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the “Anti-Trump resistance movement.” This is clearly not neutral instruction. It is activism disguised as scholarship.
From the ivory tower, these ideologies trickle down. What begins in university courses eventually lands in teacher training programs, K-12 classrooms, and education conferences. The process has a name: “idea laundering.” Academic activists flood journals, dissertations, and repositories with work that favors Antifa, then cite that same “research” to legitimize the movement.
The results can be laughable — or dangerous. One sociology dissertation at Mississippi State University read more like agitprop than analysis. The author admitted that Antifa “embraces the concept of violence and intimidation,” but brushed it off as a minority tendency. The dissertation concluded that the real problem wasn’t Antifa’s violence but the “negative press” it receives, while claiming fascist groups are the greater threat.
RELATED: Democrats falsely claim Antifa does not exist after movement gets terrorist designation
Another paper, brazenly titled “Plantifa: Antifascist Guerrilla Gardening Curriculum,” shows just how far the indoctrination has gone. It links Antifa’s radical ideology with environmental “justice,” turning classrooms into training grounds for activism. The stated goal is to condition students in anti-fascism, to “plant seeds of love against hierarchies.” Translation: Enlist kids into a movement that openly rejects Western civilization.
President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization is a long-overdue step. But stopping street violence is only part of the battle. The ideological campaign waged inside universities must be confronted with equal seriousness.
Studying radical groups is not the problem. Academic freedom allows rigorous analysis of movements and ideas. The problem is activist educators who weaponize that freedom. They smuggle their politics into classrooms, presenting indoctrination as scholarship. They use liberal values — free inquiry, free thought, dissent — as camouflage for an anti-Western ideology bent on dismantling the United States and its allies.
Universities ignore this threat at their peril. Antifa’s intellectual allies behave like a parasitic wasp: They burrow into the institution, feed on its resources, and, eventually, kill the host. If higher education refuses to police itself, the rot will spread unchecked — leaving the next generation radicalized and the nation badly weakened.
The Trump administration has negotiated a 10% federal stake in Intel in exchange for the disbursement of $8.9 billion of grants originally allocated by Biden’s CHIPS and Science Act.
First, let me offer a disclaimer: I disapprove.
If companies don’t want their equity diluted, then they should not have the option of taking taxpayer money.
Not of the Trump administration’s negotiation — but of the fact that this money was ever appropriated in the first place. The CHIPS Act was a redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. What Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are doing is simply making the best of a bad deal.
If Intel had raised this capital on Wall Street, it would’ve had to sell debt or dilute its shareholders. This is not popular among free-market conservatives because this is not how capitalism is supposed to work.
In free-market capitalism, Congress would never have appropriated $8.9 billion to Intel. Therefore, we are no longer talking about free-market capitalism. If Intel is accepting capital injections, its existing shareholders deserve to have their equity diluted.
Moreover, the government’s 10% share of Intel will be nonvoting stock. The federal government will not have management control. It will just hold a passive ownership share — something it can sell down the line to recoup what taxpayers were forced to spend.
The core issue of this deal is the redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. Yet much of the pearl-clutching among “free-market” conservatives is about the stock ownership, not about the massive taxpayer grants to corporations.
“Not long ago,” the Wall Street Journal groaned, “it would have been hard to imagine a Republican president demanding government ownership in a private company, but here we are.”
Oh, please. Before George W. Bush, I couldn’t imagine a Republican president bailing out Wall Street either. But the Journal didn’t seem to mind when its banking buddies got billions in bailouts with no strings attached, which was also footed by “we, the taxpayers.” That is much more offensive to me than the taxpayers taking a nonvoting equity share of a company that is appropriated by my tax dollars.
The Journal forgets how “principled” conservatives defended Bush’s $700 billion handout to the very institutions that caused the 2008 financial crisis. In return, those banks gave the government preferredstock, which didn’t have voting rights either — but did give the government first dibs on dividends and liquidation. That’s ownership.
Even better, Bush’s Treasury also demanded warrants — rights to convert into common stock down the line. If Trump had exercised those warrants in his first term, the federal government could have taken actual equity in Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and the rest.
RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future
National Review is up in arms too. Its editorial board — which tried to get us Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris — scolded Trump’s plan like it was some socialist scheme:
Looking at that sad situation, the Trump administration wants a piece of the action. Rather, it wants to use your money to get a piece of the action.
The White House said it was entertaining the U.S. taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, a roughly $10 billion investment at the company’s current valuation. A government $37 trillion in debt and running a $2 trillion deficit has no business playing investment manager with even more borrowed money. And the idea that what Intel really needs to fix its long-running problems is the managerial genius of the federal government is laughable.
That is deeply dishonest. Trump and Bessent negotiated about money already allocated to Intel by Congress under Joe Biden. They did not propose new spending. What’s more, the 10% equity stake does not give the Trump administration governance rights over Intel.
We’ve seen this play before with EV handouts. In 2024, the Department of Energy approved an $80 million grant to Blue Bird to manufacture electric school buses. Trump froze those appropriated funds. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) threw a fit, demanding the money get released.
If Blue Bird gets that $80 million, then taxpayers should have an equity share in Blue Bird, and the ownership of its current stockholders should be diluted accordingly. This isn’t a free market. It’s crony capitalism — or worse, corporate communism with the redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to publicly traded companies. If they don’t want their equity diluted, then they should not be taking taxpayer money.
I’ll let Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have the final word. “We should get an equity stake for our money,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.” “So we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We’ll get equity in return for it.”
In 2009, Glenn Beck was threatened by billionaire powerbroker George Soros.
“Your boss is hurting my boss, and it will end,” one of Soros’ goons told Joel Cheatwood, who at the time served as the founding chief content officer at the Blaze.
“And when Joel said, ‘No, I don't think that's going to end. I know my boss, and I don't think he's going to stop,’ [Soros’ man] said, ‘I don't think you understand. He is going to stop, and you should just let your boss know that the ship is about to sail,”’ Glenn recalls.
But it’s what came next that is perhaps most unnerving. The henchman added, “Everything that is needed is on board, and everyone's getting onto the boat, and it's about to set sail, and you do not want to be left on the dock, but it's setting sail, and it's going to leave, and your boss and you people are not going to be on it.”
Today, 16 years later, that cryptic omen is now manifesting before our very eyes.
France’s government just collapsed earlier this month when former Prime Minister François Bayrou lost a confidence vote in the National Assembly over his proposed austerity budget to tackle the country's ballooning debt and rising borrowing costs.
Predictably, the mainstream media is circulating the narrative that France’s financial predicament is the result of decades of deficit spending, COVID-era bailouts, and rising interest costs. But the truth couldn’t be more obvious: This the Cloward-Piven plan on full display.
France’s welfare system has been intentionally overwhelmed in order to collapse the system, and the country’s record migrant numbers have been a critical step in this process.
“What's happening with France here is exactly what happened in New York City — what Cloward and Piven did in New York City back in the '70s,” says Glenn’s head researcher Jason Buttrill.
France’s current financial crisis was “the point” of the nation’s open borders agenda, says Glenn — and so is the anarchy that’s on the horizon. Now that the country is forced to make significant cuts to its social welfare programs, those migrants and far-left extremists aren’t likely to sit idly by.
“When you stop paying them for not working, when all of a sudden all of that goes away, do you think they're going to be happy about it? Do you think they're going to not light the streets on fire?” Glenn asks.
But America would be ignorant to look at France’s situation as anything other than a mirror. “We are all on the verge of collapse, and nobody's recognizing it,” Glenn says.
Like France and the U.K., which has begun “arresting children for wearing T-shirts with the English flag on it,” the United States is also contending with the crime, anti-American movements, and financial strain of the Biden regime’s mass illegal immigration agenda.
“If we don't wake up soon, [America’s collapse] is going to happen because the entire West is going to collapse,” Glenn cautions.
And that’s what Soros meant when he said the ship is ready: The West has been intentionally teed up to fall into unspeakable darkness.
Glenn warns: “If this socialism thing goes, America, we're about to see one of the darkest predictions that I have made come true ... and that is: If America goes dark with the powers that we have, the technology that we have, the ability that we have, we will make the Nazis look like rookies.”
To hear more, watch the video above.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan, a rising conservative voice at the time, delivered his historic speech “A Time for Choosing.”
It’s one of "the greatest speeches in American history,” says Mark Levin.
The 29-minute nationally televised address articulated the future president’s conservative vision, emphasizing limited government, individual liberty, and a strong anti-communist stance. He criticized the growth of federal bureaucracy and warned of encroaching socialism, framing the election between Republican nominee Barry Goldwater and incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson as a critical choice between freedom and government overreach.
Reagan saw the internal erosion of liberty through excessive federal power and socialist-leaning policies as a threat equally perilous as the external danger of communism.
But Reagan didn’t view these internal and external threats as mutually exclusive. They were deeply connected.
“There is an enemy within, and the enemy within is growing because the enemy without is funding the enemy within and populating the enemy within, and they are fusing and joining and colluding with homegrown Marxists and people of that ilk,” Levin says, summarizing Reagan’s argument.
Even though this speech took place nearly 62 years ago, it is still relevant today, he says.
On this episode of “LevinTV,” Levin, who is constantly warning of America’s internal threat of Marxist ideologies and government overreach, played an inspiring clip from Reagan’s speech to remind us of what has been true since the 1960s: Marxism and unchecked government power threaten America’s core freedoms.
To hear the clip of Reagan’s speech, watch the clip below.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Trump needs to take decisive action by ordering the DOJ and FBI to begin nationwide raids targeting the Antifa domestic terror organization and its allies.
www.theblaze.com
Zohran Mamdani: NYC's pimp mayor
My friend and journalist Ben Kawaller went cruising the streets of Manhattan for "sex workers."
To talk to. Just to talk.
You can tell that Mamdani truly believes that sex work is work, because, like actual work, you can’t find any on his resume.
In a video filmed for the New York Post, Ben gets a stripper, an OnlyFans model, and some hookers — see, there’s a spectrum of sex work — on camera to give their thoughts on mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s support for the decriminalization of sex work. (Stripping 'round the pole and on screen are already legal, so what we’re really talking about is decriminalizing prostitution.)
The video is worth the watch, but if you don’t have two minutes and 52 seconds to spare, spoiler alert: The sex workers Ben spoke to will be voting for Mamdani.
No Cuomo
I don’t know how many members of the skin trade are registered to vote in the five boroughs or what their johns will do at the polls — like, are you allowed to vote against your dominatrix? — but it doesn’t bode well for Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral campaign.
Cuomo can take off his shoes in every mosque in the city and attempt to publicly shame Mamdani for holding supposedly contradictory fundamental beliefs in Islam and the “fundamental belief that sex work is work,” but I don’t think it’s going to harm Cuomo’s 33-year-old opponent.
When it comes to delivering this message of hypocrisy to the faithful, Cuomo is no Angel Jibrīl. No, Andrew is a heavily flawed politician, who looks like a successful funeral director who decides to open a diner.
Forget the blood he has on his hands from the COVID years. On the issue of sex work, Cuomo is the New York governor who “signed a repeal of a prostitution loitering law,” which made it easier for streetwalkers to set up shop on the corner than hotdog vendors.
What’s ironic is that while Cuomo never paid with money for his scandals of inappropriate touching, he paid big-time with his career. And unfortunately, New Yorkers are going to pay an even bigger price when their city is under the control of Mamdani, the comically “African-American" chic communist who wants to seize the means of production and pimp the most productive members of society like cheap whores.
Collectivist 'em all
I’m not the one to make an argument for or against sex work, but I am the one to imagine Mamdani’s future New York City, where sex work is legalized and his collectivist policies are written into law.
Let’s be honest: The goal of decriminalization is eventual legalization — just like the goal of socialism is communism. Mamdani might call himself a Democratic Socialist on "The View" — and the ladies are dumb enough to fall for the rebranding — but we all know that Democratic Socialism is simply socialism on Lupron.
You can tell that Mamdani truly believes that sex work is work, because, like actual work, you can’t find any on his resume. Now while I don’t see him joining any brothel co-ops, decriminalization will lead to more taxpayers for the government to squeeze, and thanks to the world’s oldest profession, no one will have an excuse to be unemployed. If you have a body — in whatever condition it’s in — no doubt there’s a freaky customer out there for you.
But with all the new sex workers, competition will be tight (or loose?), so I see sex work becoming yet another genital in the gig economy. In addition to migrants zipping down avenues on e-bikes for UberEats, you’ll now have them delivering flesh takeout against traffic. Just think what this will mean for congestion pricing!
RELATED: Socialist Mamdani’s $65M plan to turn NYC into ‘gender-affirming’ sanctuary for ‘transgender youth’
Breast equity
But the expanded tax base could help fund Mamdani’s promise to provide $65 million in funding for gender-affirming care. That means prostitutes of all gender identities can get the bodies they need to better serve the public. But to maintain NYC's breast equity, top surgeries and breast implants will have to balance out.
Phasing out the city’s gifted-and-talented programs in government schools is going to hurt public education, and replacing the school-to-prison pipeline with a school-to-whorehouse pipeline is going to make for some awkward conversations between educators and students.
Imagine being a high-school guidance counselor having to break the news to a student, “You don’t have the grades for college or the work ethic for trade school — but there’s always the corner.”
The barriers to entry are low to nonexistent in sex work. For now. But when the state seizes the means of reproduction, licensing will ultimately follow, and in order to combat corporate greed, there will need to be price controls. Your body, your choice — except when it comes to price-gouging.
Laid off
Until Mamdani decommodifies housing, you’ll be able to exchange sex for rent, right? But the specifics will have to be ironed out to protect tenants’ rights. No one wants to be evicted from their home because a landlord snuck a kissing clause into the lease.
The first time I heard “sex work is work” was in a sex-and-gender studies class I took as an undergrad at NYU. Supporting sex work between consenting adults has been the hip stance to take. But any time I offered minimum wage to a date sympathetic to the cause, she’d get offended. Even though I agreed to pay for the full hour — even if I didn’t use it all.
I also learned that marriage is a form of sex work — which I didn't stop believing until I actually got married. In short: There are so many things I put up with with my wife that I would never put up with a ho. Neither a pimp nor a john I be. Plus, no guy has ever thought, “I really want to get this hooker pregnant!”
My family and I no longer live in New York, but I come in often to work. It’s an expensive commute, and I may need to take on a side hustle to afford it. As the saying Karl Marx popularized goes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
If sex work is work, then the same applies. And under Mayor Mamdani, everyone is f**ked.