Mike Belcher posted a series of tweets on September 18, 2025, addressing the characterization of certain groups involved in direct action and their potential classification under terrorism laws.
In his first tweet at 12:02 UTC, Belcher commented on the organizational nature of these groups: “It’s weird how people undertaking this ‘action,’ who have names, who tend to always be found together, appear as tight-knit groups in ‘black bloc’ direct action, and who travel together to places like Cuba and Syria for combat and terrorism training aren’t ‘an organization.'” He questioned why such coordinated groups are not officially considered organizations despite apparent collective activity and international travel for training purposes.
Later that day at 17:43 UTC, Belcher elaborated on the legal framework surrounding terrorist organizations: “For the terminal idiots out there, our terrorism laws are designed to account for what amounts to a ‘DBA’ for an organization. The law has ideological predicates that would transfer to this organization as adhering to terrorist ideology. But, please do make lists.” Here, he argued that current laws are equipped to recognize organizations operating under different names if they share ideological motives.
In a third tweet at 19:14 UTC, Belcher referenced academic work on social behavior: “Pinker has discovered that humans use social mechanisms to maintain norms…” This comment appears to reference research by Steven Pinker regarding human societal behaviors and norm enforcement.
The term “black bloc” refers to protest tactics involving demonstrators wearing black clothing and masks for anonymity during direct actions or protests. Such tactics have been used globally by various activist groups since the late twentieth century. U.S. terrorism laws include provisions allowing authorities to designate loosely affiliated individuals or cells as part of an organization if they act with shared intent or ideology.
Belcher’s remarks reflect ongoing debates about how governments define organizations in relation to protest movements and security concerns. His comments come amid continued scrutiny over domestic extremism and evolving interpretations of counterterrorism statutes.
