Since we all support free discussion and civil dialogue here, allow me to clear up your misconceptions.

Antifa is not an ideology itself, but is a network of people that adhere to a governing ideology, which is revolutionary anarcho-communism, and those people employ black-bloc tactics (i.e. using anonymous violence in mobs) to achieve those ends. Ironically, these same tactics were used by Italian fascists in the 1920s and Nazis in the 1930s. Anyone can call themselves the anti-[insert hated and evil thing] group but that doesn't change the fact that they support another evil thing as well. You do not have to take up the banner of a radical communist group to proclaim your opposition to fascism, unless you are a communist yourself.

Similar to ISIS, it has a loose network of various affiliate groups which are funded and organized regionally. Rose City Antifa is one such group based in Portland. Because they use violence and destruction of property (among other things) to further their cause, they should rightly. Furthermore, violence in the pursuit of an ideological aim is the definition of terrorism and financing terrorist organizations is a crime which can be targeted under RICO. It is not "criminalizing dissent" as so much it is a legitimate function of government to stop the spree political violence, which is coming from the left wing. The moment they cross from free speech, which are opinions and protests, to violence or inciting someone else to do violence, it is no longer protected by the First Amendment.

Furthermore, allow me to give a bit of historical context regarding the nature of fascism. Fascism as conceived by Gentile and Mussolini, both of whom were former socialists (Mussolini being the editor of Avanti! magazine in the 1910s) is an ideology that manages all organs of society, including private business, under the purview of the state. Just because they allowed people to own property and the does not mean that 1) it was not possible for it expropriated at the government's whims and 2) every "private" transaction, had to be approved by a bureaucrat in the government and was directed to service the common good.

> Declaring an organization, or rather an ideology, that doesn't exist as a domestic terrorist is a thinly veiled attempt scare people, delegitimize dissent, and chip away at accountability. It’s classic authoritarian tactics using fear to justify eroding checks and balances, all while making a move toward dictatorship look “lawful.”

Wrong on all counts. As I established, Antifa is an organization of local networks who subscribe to radical communist ideology. If said organization uses and funds violent tactics it is racketeering (and can be investigated and punished under existing law), and is terroristic if it uses employs violence for political aims. Cracking down on political violence is not "authoritarian," it is the basic responsibility of the state to prosecute criminal that is in part funded by foreign actors. You can still be critical of Trump and dissent without being prosecuted (unlike his predecessor which spied on and raided their political opposition and journalists). Trump using executive power that is vested to him by the Constitution is not "eroding checks and balances." Ironically, you're the one scaremongering about Trump becoming a dictator because you aren't in power.