A sitting member of Congress took to social media this week to defend eight convicted members of an alleged North Texas antifa cell who received combined prison sentences of 450 years for a premeditated attack on a Texas immigration detention facility, an attack that left a police officer with a bullet wound through his neck and shoulder.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan Democrat and progressive "Squad" member, called the sentences "a travesty and totally unjustified" after a federal judge handed down terms ranging from 30 to 100 years. The lead defendant, former Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, drew the maximum, a century behind bars, for shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, who had responded to a 911 call the night of July 4, 2025.
Tlaib did not stop at criticizing the sentences. She framed the entire prosecution as political persecution, posting on social media that "Americans hate the fascist Trump regime, so the only way they can try to cling to power is brute force." In a separate post, she warned that "more bulls*** 'terrorism' charges like these are coming" under National Security Presidential Memo 7, the directive that classified antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The facts of the case make Tlaib's framing difficult to square with reality. On the evening of Independence Day 2025, the defendants arrived at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, carrying firearms and military-grade first aid kits. They wore dark clothing and face coverings. They vandalized property, including a security camera, and launched fireworks at the facility.
Then it escalated. Federal prosecutors described how the group used large explosives to lure out federal agents and police. When Lt. Gross arrived to answer the 911 call, Song opened fire. Gross testified at trial that a bullet traversed his shoulder and neck. He survived.
Police footage played during the trial captured Song shouting "Get to the rifles!", a detail that undercuts any suggestion this was a spontaneous act of protest gone wrong. Song's defense counsel argued he had fired in self-defense, characterizing the shot as "suppressive fire." Federal Judge Mark Pittman categorically dismissed that argument.
Five members of the cell flipped and testified for prosecutors, detailing how the group organized and planned the attack. The trial marked the first time federal prosecutors successfully brought terrorism charges against accused members of the far-left antifascist movement following NSPM-7 and an accompanying executive order.
Song received 100 years. Seven other defendants drew terms between 30 and 70 years on charges that included providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use weapons and explosives, and rioting. The combined total: 450 years.
Relatives of the convicted defendants argued the sentences were overly harsh and that the defendants "did not intend for any violence to occur." That claim sits uneasily beside the firearms, the explosives, the military-grade medical kits, and the recorded order to grab rifles.
U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould of the Northern District of Texas issued a written statement Tuesday that drew a firm line. He said the defendants' "terrorist acts, attempted murder, vandalism, and explosives launched at a detention facility were a far cry from a peaceful protest or First Amendment expression." Raybould added that his office would "continue in this mission to hold others accountable who perpetrate such violence and fund these ANTIFA groups in the Northern District of Texas."
That promise of continued enforcement stands as a reminder that the Department of Justice is expanding its accountability efforts across multiple fronts, from fraud to domestic terrorism.
The response from the right was swift and pointed. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller fired back at Tlaib for what he described as "defending antifa terrorists who tried to massacre state and federal law enforcement" while serving as a member of Congress.
Conservative columnist Kurt Schlichter offered a characteristically blunt reply on social media:
"Counterpoint: Her friends shot a cop."
Journalist Andy Ngo, who has covered antifa extensively, laid out the trial record in detail. As the New York Post reported, Ngo wrote that the defendants "were proven at court to be part of a terrorist antifa cell that trained for and planned violence using firearms." He noted that five cell members who cooperated with prosecutors described "how they organized behind the antifa ideology."
Ngo addressed Tlaib directly: "Congresswoman, I know you must be very upset that these terrorists you are sympathetic to didn't get away with it this time."
Tlaib's defense of the convicted attackers fits a broader pattern among progressive members of Congress who treat law enforcement actions and national security prosecutions as instruments of political oppression rather than public safety. Her framing, casting terrorism convictions backed by cooperating witnesses, police footage, and physical evidence as mere "brute force" by a regime she despises, asks Americans to ignore what actually happened in Alvarado, Texas.
A police lieutenant responded to a call for help. He was shot in the neck. The people who did it brought rifles, explosives, and first-aid kits because they expected a fight. They dressed in black and covered their faces. Five of their own associates told a jury exactly how the group planned it.
Tlaib's complaint about NSPM-7 and the classification of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization is a policy argument she is free to make. But she did not limit herself to policy. She called the sentences for attempted murder and terrorism "totally unjustified." She put scare quotes around the word "terrorism." She told her followers the charges were political.
This is not the first time House Democrats have drawn fire for conduct that appears to place ideology above the interests of the country and the safety of law enforcement. Nor is it the first time progressive lawmakers have struggled to draw a clear line between political dissent and political violence.
The case also raises questions about the networks behind these groups. Raybould's vow to pursue those who "fund these ANTIFA groups" suggests prosecutors see the Prairieland attack not as an isolated incident but as part of a broader organized threat. When federal investigators follow the money in criminal networks, the results often reveal a scope that initial headlines barely hint at.
Missing from Tlaib's posts was any acknowledgment of Lt. Gross. No mention of the officer who took a round through his neck while answering a call for help on the Fourth of July. No word about the facility staff who were targeted. No recognition that the defendants arrived armed and prepared for violence.
Instead, she offered a political frame: the convictions are unjust, the charges are fabricated, and the real villain is the administration that prosecuted the case. That framing requires ignoring the testimony of five cooperating witnesses, the physical evidence, the police footage, and the judgment of a federal court.
The broader political landscape only sharpens the contrast. At a moment when the administration is pressing serious national security confrontations abroad, a member of Congress chose to spend her public platform defending people convicted of attacking a federal facility and shooting a cop.
NSPM-7 was issued in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk's assassination. Whatever one thinks of the memo's legal framework, the attack on Prairieland Detention Center is precisely the kind of organized political violence it was designed to address: planned, armed, coordinated, and directed at government personnel and infrastructure.
Judge Pittman heard the evidence. The jury weighed it. The sentences were handed down. Tlaib's objection is not with the process. It is with the outcome, because the outcome held her ideological allies accountable.
There is a difference between opposing a policy and excusing violence committed in its name. Tlaib has every right to criticize NSPM-7, to argue the domestic terrorism designation is overbroad, to push for legislative change. That is what members of Congress do.
But calling a 100-year sentence for shooting a police officer "a travesty" is not policy criticism. It is a statement of values. And the value it communicates is that political sympathy can override the facts of a case, the rifles, the explosives, the bullet that passed through a man's neck.
Lt. Thomas Gross went to work on Independence Day and nearly died answering a 911 call. Eight people who planned and executed that attack will spend decades in prison. A congresswoman thinks that's the real injustice.
The voters in Michigan's 12th District can decide what to make of that. The rest of us already know.
