A group of defendants who federal prosecutors allege are part of an “antifa cell” are accused of conspiring to attack an ICE detention center last year.
FORT WORTH, Texas (CN) – The Justice Department and lawyers for nine defendants made closing arguments Wednesday in a federal trial in Fort Worth, Texas, that has served as a testing ground for the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute “antifa” as an organized terrorist group.
of the case centers around the shooting at the Prairieland Detention Center, an ICE facility in North Texas, on July 4, 2025, in which a police officer was shot. Prosecutors have argued that an “antifa cell” conspired to attack the facility, shooting fireworks at it and vandalizing the property, and that the incident culminated in the shooting of a police officer who was called to the scene.
The defendants in the case are charged with a variety of federal crimes, including rioting, providing material support to terrorists, using and possessing an explosive, attempted murder of a US government employee and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada, who was not present at the event, has been charged with concealing evidence after the fact.
During the two-week trial, the jury heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including several other individuals who were arrested in connection with the incident and received plea deals. The defense did not present any witnesses.
The defendants have claimed that the event was supposed to be a peaceful “noise demonstration” where they set off fireworks to show support for the detainees inside the facility and that no violence was intended. During closing arguments, an attorney for the defendant, Zachary Evetts, said the goal of the protest was to give “a message of hope to the alien who resides in our country.”
But Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith dismissed the idea that it was intended to be a peaceful protest, arguing that because the protesters had guns, body armor and first aid kits, there was a plot to ambush the facility. He also said the protesters were wearing the “black block” by dressing in black to hide their identity, which he said is further evidence of a conspiracy.
“It’s impossible to tell who’s doing what,” Smith said.
Smith said the group used tactics that are “hallmarks” of antifa.
“That’s why understanding antifa is important to this case,” he said.
Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a term used to refer to a decentralized movement of activist groups that oppose fascism, racism and far-right extremism. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last year by designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. The Prairieland shooting trial is the first case in which the federal government has brought antifa-related terrorism charges.
The defendant’s lawyer Maricela Rueda criticized the government for this in her closing argument.
“This is an experiment for them,” she said. “But this courtroom is not a laboratory and Maricela is not a lab rat.”
Prosecutors argue that defendant Benjamin Song, whom they have described as the leader of the group, is the person who shot the policeman. Several other defendants, who the prosecution allege were part of Song’s inner circle, have also been charged with attempted murder under the theory of Pinkerton liability, where participants in a conspiracy can be held criminally liable for “reasonably foreseeable” crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The prosecution has argued that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendants that Song would shoot the officer. In the government’s closing argument, Assistant US Attorney Frank Gatto compared the situation to a group of people who conspired to rob a bank and then one of them shot someone during the robbery.
A defense lawyer for Song said during his closing arguments that what happened at the detention center was “a tragedy” but “no one intended for anyone to get hurt.” Attempted murder requires an intent to kill, he argued. He said the officer pointed his gun at a fleeing protester, suggesting the person who shot the officer was trying to use “suppressive fire” to distract the officer in order to protect the other protester.
US District Judge Mark Pittman previously ruled that the defendants cannot claim self-defense or the defense of another as justification for the shooting. At one point, the prosecution objected to Song’s closing argument, claiming his lawyer was trying to make an argument that was off limits.
The jury is expected to begin deliberations in the case on Thursday.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
