Talk:List of designated terrorist groups

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sonnenkrieg Division.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Antifa

As of now (morning of September 19) Antifa has been mentioned by Trump as a terrorist organization, but there is no formal declaration, executive order or list from a government agency that labels it as such. It is even unclear if there is a process to declare a domestic organization as terrorist, and much less an ideology or movement such as Antifa. We are used to Trump saying all kind of things, but that carry no legal weight until something gets put on paper. See this BBC source that says "'There is no legal mechanism I'm aware of that would formally establish any group as a domestic terror organisation', Luke Baumgartner, a research fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism, told us. 'As far as I know it's just a proclamation on Truth Social which means nothing, and unless Congress wants to take concrete steps I don't see that happening,' he said." That means that as of now Antifa is not proclaimed a terrorist organization by the US. Sjö (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Now , an executive order was published. This is sourced in the revision of the article made on "SEPT/22/2025" at "23:57 UTC".

When I'm writing this comment. This is the last revision. Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Antifa is now designated as terrorists in the US. To avoid confusion, my original point still stands: declarations by politicians (e.g. Orbán) about what they want to do or which organizations thy consider terrorists are not enough for inclusion in this list. There has to be some kind of formal declaration according to the process that particular country uses. Sjö (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I did perfectly understood what you did wanted to say before your last comment. Now , the others users (In some years for example) could know the context with the help of your last comment. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Antifa is still not formally designated as a terrorist organization. This cannot be done via an EO. Further, it cannot be done as a domestic organization. And it isn't even an organization at all. This is discussed at the Antifa article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  It does not matter to this article that it is not an organization, since we mention Russia designating Satanism and the LGBT movement as terrorist organisations. I think that the deciding factor is if the designating authority refers to them as organization, and that we would violate WP:OR if we would try to decide if something really is an organization or not before adding it to the list.

  About the process, I think that the EO de facto created a new process to designate a domestic organization as terrorist. Nobody can deny that the EO says that Antifa is designated as a terrorist organization, even if it has no particular legal effect, other than what the EO says about working within the existing legal framework to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle illegal operations related to Antifa. I think that is enough. Sjö (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Executive orders were also used to designate multiple cartel groups as terrorist organizations, the cartels appear to be counted in this article, so I agree that Antifa should be as well. 1001950cats$ (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Then we should remove the cartels. There simply is no such designation as a domestic terrorist organization under US law, and if there were, an EO can't do this anyhow, and if it could, antifa isn't even an organization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  I noticed now that the entry about the United States also got restored. My bad, thought it was Netherlands only. Anyway, neither entry should be restored without consensus. The one who seeks to restore new content should try to gain consensus, not the other way around. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Accorded to sources , it is true that this "executive order" haven't a legal value concerning the formal designation of this movement as a terrorist group.

  But , I think that a federal court can say otherwise. In my knowledge , this text isn't yet discussed face to a court.

  This is not our role to say if this executive order have legal effects or not without use a source.

  We should rely on "reliable sources". Therefore , I think that we can include the existence of this text because it does factually exist. This executive order designate this movement as a terrorist entity , it's factual that this text is there.

  
  

  I join the position made by @Sjö in the message published on "SEPT/26/2025" at "12:22 UTC".

  I join the position made by @1001950cats$ in the message on "SEPT/26/2025" at "17:16 UTC". Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

On this "edit" made on "OCT/13/2025" at "12:47 UTC" by @Sjö.

We can find comments inside this edit referring to this conversation about "Antifa".

So , I put this edit there because I think that it can interest readers.

When I'm writing these lines. The official list of designated terrorist groups by "Council of the European Union" is "Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1577 of 29 July 2025. updating the list of persons, groups and entities covered by Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2025/207" : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32025D1577

This is a primary source useful for a basic checking.

When you know that "Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1577" did repealed "Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/207" repealing ""Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2056". You can back in time until the first decision based on "Position 2001/931/CFSP". Groups can be delisted , the same for people.

The list is revised at least two time per year. If you read the full name of the list you can know the number of the previous list that is repealed. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

In modern, practical terms, the KKK Act of 1871 could be considered an anti-terrorism law. The term didn't exist in 1871, but just because it contains the word 'terrorism' doesn't necessarily mean it has to be classified as such. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess you mean "just because it doesn't contain the word", but I think that is needed. If we start adding groups here because we think they are like a terrorist organization we are doing original research which is not a proper reason to add something. We do need an official source that explicitly calls it a terrorist organization. Sjö (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not because I believe it, but because in practice the US has treated them as such. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Clearly the KKK was a terrorist organization. Likely the worst in US history. But is it a "designated terrorist group" by a country. Alas, AFAIK, it isn't. Nor is the Catholic Church for the Inquisition or so many, many other examples of terrorizing people in history. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

These are the reasons why one can argue that the U.S. government and courts have treated the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) de facto as a terrorist organization, even though there has never been a formal federal “terrorist organization” designation: Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Reconstruction Laws (“Ku Klux Klan Acts”)

For example, the Enforcement Act of 1870 (sometimes called the “First Ku Klux Klan Act”) was passed specifically “to combat attacks on African Americans’ right to vote” carried out by violent groups like the KKK.

These laws authorized the president and the federal government to use federal forces, U.S. marshals, even the army, to secure constitutional rights violently attacked by the Klan. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

2. Court cases recognizing the KKK as a terroristic/supremacist conspiratorial group

United States v. US Klans, Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Inc. (1961): this federal lawsuit accused the KKK of conspiring to intimidate and attack bus passengers, destroy property, and use threats and violence — acts clearly terroristic in nature (political violence, intimidation, etc.).

United Klans of America v. McGovern (1978): the court referred to the Klan as a “white supremacist organization whose purposes and policies are implemented by acts of terror and intimidation.”

In that same case, the court analyzed an FBI program (COINTELPRO) whose stated purpose was to “expose, disrupt, and neutralize the Klan or other hate groups,” showing that the government saw the KKK as an active internal threat. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

3. Federal law criminalizing violent conspiracies against civil rights

Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (“conspiracy against rights”) stems from Reconstruction-era laws designed to punish those conspiring to deprive people of constitutional rights through intimidation and threats. This was historically used against the KKK.

A recent example: federal prosecutors have invoked this same provision (or statutes derived from the Klan Acts) in indictments related to political intimidation or conspiracies. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

4. Institutional recognition of terroristic behavior

While the KKK has never been formally designated a “domestic terrorist organization” under federal law, agencies like the FBI have investigated them under categories such as “domestic extremism” or “domestic terrorism.” This shows that for purposes of intelligence, surveillance, and threat assessment, the State has treated them similarly. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

5. Legal use of terms like “terror, violence, intimidation, conspiracy”

In United Klans of America v. McGovern, the court explicitly stated that the KKK carries out its purposes through intimidation and terror.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a Klan leader was prosecuted under state “criminal syndicalism” laws for advocating violence, cross burnings, etc. While the Supreme Court protected his speech under the First Amendment with strict criteria, the case demonstrates that Klan activity was legally seen as terroristic or violent. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

6. State-level anti-Klan or anti-masking laws

Some states passed laws banning masked public assemblies, explicitly aimed at stopping Klan rallies. For instance, Ohio passed such a statute in 1953.

In Church of the American Knights of the KKK v. City of New York, the city barred the Klan from wearing masks during demonstrations, citing anti-masking laws — though constitutional issues of free speech and assembly were debated. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

PS: O3000, remember that there are catholics here, and your words about the Church can be interpreted as anti-catholic. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alexgonzalezvasquez I think that your reasoning falls under "Wikipedia:No original research". Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I join the position made by @Sjö in the message published on "SEPT/26/2025" at "12:06 UTC". Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Explosion following the plane impact into the South Tower (WTC 2) - B6019~11 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fatah Flag Vector Graphic.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tehreek-e-Labbaik flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

US Department of Treasury designations

There are several organizations where the refs are to the Treasury, but as in the US only the Secretary of State is authorized to do that. For that reason I believe they should be removed. Comments? Sjö (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking further into this, it appears that it is not only the Secretary of State, but also the Treasury that can designate terrorist groups, according to Specially Designated Global Terrorist and Specially Designated Terrorist. It would be great if we can come to a consensus about whether these groups should be included, and if so we would also have to add to the text in the section Process of designation. Sjö (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that we can indicate if a group is designated in the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" or / and the "Specially Designated Terrorist".

How can we do this ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

No Lives Matter is not a designated terrorist organization

It has been added using this source https://www.njohsp.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1430/2 which does not call the organization terrorist. The mentions of the word "terrorist" or similar in the source is about supporting the German organization Mordwaffen Division, about an NLM publication called the Terror Guide and in a quote: “spread of terror to all who are mundane.” Nowhere does the NJ Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness designate or call NLM a terrorist organisation, which means that adding it to this list fails WP:V and WP:NOR. I will remove it again unless someone gives a compelling argument for why it should remain. Sjö (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Now removed. Sjö (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion criteria

There have been some interesting discussions, unfortunately partly by edit comments, about what counts as a "designated" terrorist group. I have summarized what I believe is the result of these discussion and would like to present this for discussion:

All of these have to apply:

1.It was officially designated. That is, a government entity made a formal declaration that designates the group as a terrorist group. This means that

• designations by news organizations, universities or non-government organisations do not count,
• nor does declarations by officials or politicians in interviews or on social media
• it is not enough that the group is investigated for terrorism.

2. The formal declaration uses the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" to describe the group. This means no WP:OR along the lines that the group is so vile that Wikipedia should call them terrorist.

3. The designation has legal effects for the designated group that would otherwise not exist. These effects can be for example that members or supporters can be punished, travel bans for members or freezing assets of the group. This means that

• purely political declarations by officials or politicians without legal effect do not count, even if it comes in the form of a formal declaration
• it does not count if the designation has no other effect than to prioritize law enforcement's work within the existing legal framework, but gives the government no more authority over the designated group than over any other non-designated group.

4. The designating government entity calls it a group, organization or similar. This means that

• lone wolf terrorists are not included
• we put a group on this list if the designating entity calls it a group or an organization, to avoid WP:OR and POV haggling over what is and what is not an group.

Sjö (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring only to the thread "Antifa" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No, not only. See for example the KKK thread on this page, the EOKA and Confusion about inclusion criteria in Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 7, Further disruption by Iraqi IP editor in Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 6 and mentions of political declarations in edit comments . Sjö (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I read all threads that you did mentioned. It does seem that there are a consensus for all of the four points.

But , I'm not sure that my analysis is correct.

Concerning the point n°3. You wrote : "purely political declarations by officials or politicians without legal effect do not count, even if it comes in the form of a formal declaration".

I think that you did implictly included non-binding resolutions of parliaments. Is this right ?

As an example , I think to the designation of "Wagner Group" by France that was made by a non-binding resolution of "National Assembly".

Even if non-binding resolutions of parliaments haven't legal effects. I think that we can find a way to distinguish documents that have legal effects and those who aren't. A non-binding resolution is a formal declaration even if there are not legal effect.

I think the same concerning the "executive orders".

If we are unable to find a way to distinguish those that have a legal effect and those that aren't.

We should include only those that have a legal effect. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• InfoboxHez.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al-Malahem Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)