Leader of Group That Attacked Texas ICE Facility Hit with 100-Year Sentence

Eight members of a North Texas Antifa cell just received sentences totaling 450 years in federal prison — and some in the media are working hard to make you feel sorry for them.

Story Snapshot

Benjamin Hanil Song, the cell’s leader, was sentenced to 100 years in prison after being convicted of attempted murder for shooting a police officer in the neck during a July 4, 2025 attack on a Texas immigration detention center.
A federal jury convicted all eight defendants of providing material support to terrorists — the first convictions under President Trump’s executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
The group arrived armed with firearms, body armor, explosives, and medical supplies, dressed in black bloc attire — yet some media framed the event as a protest that got out of hand.
Liberal outlets compared the 100-year sentences to January 6 Capitol rioter sentences to suggest political bias, while ignoring that Song shot a police lieutenant in the neck.

What Happened on July 4, 2025

On July 4, 2025, a group of Antifa-affiliated individuals attacked the Prairieland detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, which is run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Video evidence showed the group arriving in black bloc clothing, carrying firearms, body armor, medical supplies, and explosives. During the attack, Benjamin Hanil Song shot an Alvarado police lieutenant in the neck. A federal jury convicted all eight defendants in March 2026 on terrorism-related charges.

On June 23, 2026, Song received 100 years in federal prison. The other seven defendants received sentences ranging from 30 to 100 years. Combined, the eight received 450 years in prison. ^[2] The Justice Department called it a landmark case — the first sentencing of Antifa-affiliated defendants under Trump’s September 2025 executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization.

How the Liberal Media Spun the Story

Several left-leaning outlets framed the verdicts as politically motivated overreach. A key talking point: the 100-year sentence for Song versus the 22-year maximum sentence handed to some January 6 Capitol rioters. The comparison is designed to make the sentences look like political payback. But it skips a critical fact — Song was convicted of attempted murder for shooting a police officer. That alone carries severe sentencing weight, independent of any terrorism designation.

Other outlets leaned on a real legal gap to cast doubt on the entire case. It’s true that Congress has never created a specific federal crime called “domestic terrorism” for use against U.S.-based groups the way it has for foreign ones. ^[3] The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism, but it does not authorize material support charges against domestic groups the same way it does for foreign terrorist organizations. Critics, including a Georgetown Law professor, argued the charges rest on shaky legal ground and risk punishing political beliefs rather than criminal acts.

What the Evidence Actually Showed

The “it was just a protest” framing falls apart against the physical evidence. Prosecutors showed the jury video of the group arriving armed and in tactical gear. Song had acquired 11 firearms and distributed them among the group. ^[5] Defense attorneys argued the group armed itself only for self-defense and that no violence was planned. The jury rejected that argument. Song’s conviction for attempted murder — not just terrorism support — makes clear this was not a case of protesters caught up in a political dragnet.

"Nearly one year after this cowardly act, justice has prevailed," said Acting @ICEgov Director David J. Venturella on the sentencing of eight "North Texas Antifa Cell" members for their July 4, 2025 attack on the Prairieland ICE facility. https://t.co/gsWOqIqYaB

— The Texan (@TheTexanNews) June 24, 2026

Some defendants claimed they were members of the Emma Goldman Reading Society, a book group, and denied any Antifa affiliation. Five co-defendants did plead guilty. ^[4] The “book club” defense may have softened public perception, but it did not sway the jury. The broader concern worth watching is whether the executive order framework gets used in future cases where the evidence is far less clear-cut. That is a legitimate question — one that both civil libertarians on the left and Americans worried about government overreach on the right should take seriously. But in this specific case, the facts were hard to ignore.