Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that while Washington has the authority to protect federal facilities in Portland, Oregon, he would rather see federal and local officials work together—and warned against branding antifa as “terrorists” without due process.
In remarks that balanced security concerns with civil-liberties safeguards, the Kentucky Republican argued that federal agencies are permitted to defend courthouses and other properties when unrest threatens them, but that coordination with city and state authorities should be the default. “The federal government can protect federal buildings,” he said, “but the best outcomes come from cooperation with local law enforcement and elected leaders.”
Paul, a longtime libertarian-leaning lawmaker, also pushed back on calls to designate “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization, noting that the term is often used as a loose descriptor rather than a structured group. “We should not slap a ‘terrorist’ label on Americans without a clear process and individualized evidence,” he said, emphasizing First Amendment protections for speech and assembly, even when demonstrations are controversial or unruly.
Balancing security and rights
Paul framed the debate as a classic tension between order and liberty. He supported targeted prosecutions for individuals who commit crimes—such as arson, assault, or property damage—while rejecting sweeping categorizations he said could chill lawful protest. “Punish criminal acts,” he said, “but don’t criminalize association or ideology.”
Legal scholars have repeatedly noted that U.S. law provides no formal mechanism to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations, unlike the State Department’s process for foreign entities. Paul’s caution reflects concerns that ad hoc labels could be weaponized politically or applied inconsistently, undermining equal protection and due process.
Federal–local dynamics in Portland
Portland has periodically seen clashes around federal properties that place local police, state officials, and federal agents at the center of jurisdictional disputes. Paul urged de-escalation strategies that prioritize joint command structures, clear rules of engagement, and transparent communication with community leaders. He argued that cooperative approaches reduce the likelihood of force escalation and make prosecutions more sustainable in court.
What Paul is (and isn’t) calling for
Yes to federal protection of federal sites: Guarding courthouses and offices is legitimate, particularly if locals request support or if imminent threats exist.
No to blanket designations: Labels like “terrorist” should not be applied to broad, amorphous movements; pursue individuals based on evidence.
Focus on process: Use existing laws (e.g., conspiracy, arson, assault) with robust evidentiary standards, judicial oversight, and respect for constitutional rights.
Emphasis on collaboration: Build joint task forces and incident command systems to align tactics, reduce duplication, and improve accountability.
The political stakes
Paul’s position places him at a libertarian crosscurrent in Republican politics—backing strong protection of federal assets while warning against expansions of domestic security powers that could encroach on civil liberties. As debates over protest policing and political violence continue into the 2026 cycle, his remarks signal an effort to carve out a rights-forward approach that still promises order.
Whether that balance holds in future flashpoints may depend less on rhetoric and more on the basics he outlined: cooperation, clear legal thresholds, and case-by-case enforcement rooted in due process.
