A federal jury in Fort Worth delivered a mixed verdict in the Prairieland trial after a 12-day trial with 45-plus witnesses and 210-plus exhibits, convicting eight of nine defendants on terrorism charges while acquitting all but the actual shooter on attempted murder -- a result that simultaneously validated the government's unprecedented material support theory and rejected its claim that everyone present aided the shooting.
The verdicts:
The acquittals on attempted murder were significant: the jury rejected the government's theory that everyone present aided and abetted Song's shooting of the officer, recognizing that most participants did not know a shooting would occur. But the material support convictions established a devastating precedent -- that attending a protest where someone else commits violence, while wearing dark clothing and setting off fireworks, constitutes terrorism.
The material support statute (18 U.S.C. 2339A) required no proof of terroristic intent. As former DOJ counsel Tom Brzozowski explained: "Prosecutors didn't have to prove the Prairieland defendants had terroristic intent or that antifa even existed" to secure convictions. The antifa framing was political messaging, not legal necessity. Brzozowski called it "a pretty obvious, blatant effort by the government to affix the term 'antifa' to this sort of activity."
What defendants actually did versus what they were convicted of:
Attorney General Pam Bondi declared: "Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities -- not under President Trump. Today's verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America's streets."
HSI Dallas Special Agent in Charge Travis Pickard called it "the nation's initial federal indictment targeting a coordinated group of Antifa cell members engaged in violent criminal activity."
Former U.S. Attorney Leigha Simonton warned that the prosecution risked criminalizing conduct that "might be protected" under the First Amendment, driven by a desire to be seen as "trying to protect law enforcement."
The Prairieland verdict established the legal architecture for prosecuting political protest as terrorism under the domestic terrorism framework articulated by NSPM-7. While the incident predated the September 2025 memorandum, the prosecution was shaped by its logic: that ideological beliefs (anarchism, anti-capitalism, opposition to immigration detention) could be reframed as indicators of terrorist intent, and that presence at a protest where violence occurs -- even unexpected violence by one person -- is sufficient for terrorism charges against all participants. Combined with the seven guilty pleas, 16 people were convicted of terrorism-related charges for what cooperating witnesses described as a noise demonstration gone wrong.