FBI Raids Anti-War Activists' Homes in Coordinated Nationwide Operation

FBI agents executed coordinated early-morning raids on the homes and offices of anti-war and international solidarity activists in Minneapolis, Chicago, and other cities, seizing computers, phones, documents, and political materials. The raids targeted activists organizing against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and supporting Palestinian and Colombian resistance movements, demonstrating how counterterrorism authorities were being used to criminalize political speech and international solidarity work.

The Raids

On September 24, 2010, FBI agents executed search warrants at homes and offices in Minneapolis, Chicago, and other cities. The raids began early in the morning, with heavily armed agents breaking down doors, searching homes for hours, and seizing:

• Computers, phones, and electronic devices
• Political posters, books, and educational materials
• International solidarity organization files
• Personal correspondence and photographs
• Children’s artwork and family photos

More than a dozen activists were served with federal grand jury subpoenas to appear and testify about their political associations and activities. The warrants cited violations of laws against providing “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations—laws originally justified as counterterrorism measures but increasingly used against activists engaged in political advocacy.

Targets: Anti-War and Solidarity Activists

The activists targeted were involved in lawful political organizing:

• Anti-war activism: Organizing protests against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
• Palestinian solidarity: Supporting Palestinian self-determination and criticizing Israeli policies
• Colombia solidarity: Advocating for human rights and opposing U.S. military aid to Colombia’s government
• Labor organizing: Supporting workers’ rights and union organizing
• Community organizing: Working on housing, immigration, and social justice issues

None of the activists were charged with terrorism or any violent crime. The raids targeted them for their political speech, international travel, and associations with organizations abroad that the U.S. government opposed.

Material Support Laws as Political Weapon

The FBI justified the raids by investigating potential violations of laws prohibiting “material support” to designated foreign terrorist organizations. However, the law’s definition of “material support” was so broad that it potentially criminalized:

• Traveling to meet with organizations
• Providing training in human rights advocacy or conflict resolution
• Distributing educational materials
• Coordinating with international movements
• Speaking at conferences or events

The Supreme Court had ruled in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) that even speech coordinated with designated organizations could constitute material support—a decision that civil liberties groups warned would criminalize peaceful advocacy and international solidarity work.

Grand Jury as Fishing Expedition

The grand jury subpoenas demanded that activists testify about:

• Their political beliefs and associations
• Other activists they knew or worked with
• Travel to Palestine, Colombia, and other countries
• Participation in political organizations and protests
• Communications with international solidarity groups

This mirrored tactics from earlier political repression campaigns: using grand juries not to investigate specific crimes but to map political movements, identify activists, and create division through pressure to inform on colleagues. Activists who refused to testify faced potential contempt charges and imprisonment.

Chilling Effect on Political Organizing

The raids had their intended chilling effect:

• Activists became fearful of international solidarity work
• Organizations scaled back advocacy out of fear of prosecution
• Muslim, Arab, and Latin American diaspora communities faced increased surveillance and harassment
• The raids signaled that criticizing U.S. foreign policy or supporting resistance movements abroad could trigger terrorism investigations

The message was clear: the government could treat political dissent, particularly on issues of U.S. military intervention and support for Israel, as potential terrorism.

Pattern of Surveillance

The raids revealed that the FBI had been conducting extensive surveillance of the activists for years:

• Infiltrating activist organizations with informants
• Monitoring emails, phone calls, and social media
• Tracking international travel
• Recording protest participation
• Photographing activists at demonstrations

The surveillance predated any claim of criminal activity, suggesting it was based on political viewpoint rather than legitimate law enforcement concerns. The FBI’s ability to obtain warrants based on this political surveillance demonstrated how easily counterterrorism authorities could be used against domestic activists.

Resistance and Organizing

The targeted activists refused to cooperate with the grand jury, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to testify. Supported by civil liberties organizations and solidarity groups nationwide, they organized a “Committee to Stop FBI Repression” that:

• Publicized the raids and their political targeting
• Organized protests at FBI offices
• Built legal defense funds
• Connected the raids to historical political repression campaigns
• Educated communities about grand jury resistance

No Charges Filed

Despite years of investigation, extensive surveillance, and the aggressive raids, the government never charged any of the activists with terrorism or material support crimes. The investigation was eventually closed without indictments, confirming that the raids were a fishing expedition rather than a response to genuine criminal activity.

The lack of charges demonstrated that the raids’ purpose was harassment and intimidation rather than prosecution—a classic political repression tactic designed to drain activist resources, create fear, and deter others from similar organizing.

Broader Context: Targeting Dissent as Terrorism

The 2010 raids fit within a broader FBI pattern of treating political dissent as terrorism:

Historical Precedents:

• COINTELPRO targeting of civil rights, anti-war, and black nationalist movements (1956-1971)
• Surveillance of Central America solidarity activists in the 1980s
• Monitoring of anti-globalization protesters in the 1990s

Post-9/11 Expansion:

• Surveillance of Muslim Americans and Palestinian solidarity activists
• Infiltration of anti-war groups and peace organizations
• Monitoring of environmental activists as “eco-terrorists”
• Surveillance of Black Lives Matter and racial justice organizers
• Targeting of Indigenous pipeline opponents and environmental defenders

The common thread: the FBI consistently uses national security authorities to monitor, infiltrate, and disrupt movements that challenge U.S. military intervention, corporate power, racial injustice, or environmental destruction.

Legal and Constitutional Violations

The raids raised serious constitutional concerns:

First Amendment:

• Targeting activists based on political speech and association
• Chilling effect on international solidarity work and criticism of U.S. foreign policy
• Grand jury used to map political networks rather than investigate crimes

Fourth Amendment:

• Warrants based on political surveillance rather than probable cause of crime
• Seizure of political materials and communications protected by First Amendment
• Overbroad searches targeting constitutionally protected activity

Fifth Amendment:

• Grand jury used as tool of harassment rather than legitimate investigation
• Pressure to testify about political associations and beliefs
• Threat of imprisonment for refusing to inform on fellow activists

Significance

The September 24, 2010 FBI raids demonstrated how post-9/11 counterterrorism authorities—particularly material support laws and grand jury powers—could be weaponized against domestic political dissent. By targeting anti-war activists and international solidarity organizers with terrorism investigations, the FBI sent a message that criticizing U.S. military policy or supporting resistance movements abroad could result in raids, surveillance, and potential prosecution.

The raids revealed the continuity between historical political repression campaigns like COINTELPRO and modern surveillance: the tactics and targets may evolve, but the FBI’s treatment of political dissent as a security threat remains constant. The use of “terrorism” as a label to justify investigating activists engaged in constitutionally protected speech showed how national security language could be used to resurrect the domestic political policing that supposedly ended with COINTELPRO’s exposure.

The fact that no charges were ever filed confirmed that the raids were never about preventing terrorism or prosecuting crimes—they were about suppressing political organizing, particularly organizing in solidarity with Palestinians and Colombian social movements that challenged U.S. geopolitical interests. The raids exemplified how counterterrorism infrastructure created after 9/11 could be turned inward against Americans exercising their constitutional rights to criticize government policy and organize for social change.