1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

As your constituent, I am writing to urge immediate congressional action against one of the most alarming examples of politicized prosecution in American history — one that threatens every American's First Amendment rights regardless of political beliefs. On July 4, 2025, activists staged a constitutionally protected protest outside the Prairieland ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas — setting off fireworks, banging drums, expressing solidarity with detainees inside. Two protesters vandalized vehicles with graffiti. Property damage totaled less than $2,200. A police officer arrived. Shots were fired by both sides under disputed circumstances — the defense argued the shooting was triggered by the officer pointing his gun at a fleeing protester. The officer was shot in the shoulder and released from the hospital within hours. On June 23, 2026, eight people received these sentences: * Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder: 100 years * Maricela Rueda: 70 years — partly for asking her husband to move boxes of political magazines after her arrest * Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Meagan Morris, Savanna Batten, Elizabeth Soto: 50 years each * Daniel Sanchez Estrada: 30 years — for moving a box of political magazines. He was not at the protest. While the prosecution focused on the singular act of a shooting under disputed circumstances, they leveraged a "material support" statute to turn a localized, chaotic event into a sprawling political conspiracy. By charging protesters—including those who were not present—with "material support of terrorism" based on political associations and the possession of literature, the DOJ intentionally bypassed standard criminal law. They sought to redefine constitutionally protected activism as a criminal enterprise. The result is a sentencing disparity that dwarfs the penalties for the January 6 attack, signaling that the goal of this prosecution was not just accountability for a specific incident, but the establishment of a precedent that treats dissent as domestic terrorism. Every sentence is longer than any handed down to any of the 1,500 participants in the January 6 assault on the Capitol — an attack involving weapons, publicly stated plans to kill members of Congress, the actual storming of the Capitol, and 140 injured officers. The average January 6 sentence was 26 months. Trump later pardoned over 1,600 January 6 participants, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members, commuting their sentences to time served. The DOJ could have applied the same material support of terrorism statute it used here to January 6 defendants. It chose not to. The disparity is not a coincidence. It is the point. The prosecution is also wrong on its own terms, for four reasons: - "Antifa" Is Not an Organization. The central claim — that defendants materially supported a domestic terrorist organization — has a fundamental factual problem: antifa has no membership, leadership, structure, or headquarters. It is a political philosophy. The evidence of "antifa membership" presented at trial consisted of wearing black clothing, belonging to a book club, possessing political literature, and using the Signal app. - The Trump Administration Uses Signal, Too. In March 2025, it emerged that Defense Secretary Hegseth, National Security Adviser Waltz, Vice President Vance, CIA Director Ratcliffe, and Secretary of State Rubio used Signal — with disappearing messages enabled — to discuss classified military strike operations in Yemen. National security experts said this likely violated the Federal Records Act and potentially the Espionage Act. A federal judge ordered records preserved. A bipartisan group of senators demanded accountability. No one was charged. Cabinet officials used Signal to plan a war and faced zero consequences. Eight protesters used Signal to organize a noise demonstration and received a combined 450 years in prison. - The Charges Were Escalated by Presidential Directive. After Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 — a crackdown on left-wing activism following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — the Prairieland defendants' charges were upgraded. The DOJ's own press release celebrated these as "the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following President Donald J. Trump's executive order." These sentences were a political priority, delivered on demand. - This Statute Can Now Be Used Against Anyone. It requires no proof of a formal connection to an organization and no personal intent to commit violence. As defense attorney Sufia Khalid warned: "Any American can be targeted that way now." We are already seeing this chilling effect: similar charges have been filed against 15 protesters in Minnesota and activists in Michigan. The "Prairieland playbook" is being exported. Today it is used against one political movement; tomorrow, the same overreach can be used to criminalize protest in any community. The defendants are appealing — but to the Fifth Circuit, whose rulings are so extreme they are regularly overturned by the Supreme Court. Given the urgency and the potential for a chilling effect on the First Amendment, we cannot wait for the lengthy appeals process for courts to fix what prosecutors and a presidential directive deliberately broke. I urge you to act on three fronts: 1. Investigate the Prairieland prosecutions. Use congressional oversight authority to determine whether charge escalations following NSPM-7 constituted improper political interference, and whether these sentences violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment given the January 6 record. 2. Reform the domestic material support statute. As currently written and applied, it can imprison any American who attends a protest that turns violent — regardless of their own actions or intent. That is not consistent with the First Amendment. 3. Assert publicly that the right to protest is constitutionally protected regardless of political viewpoint. A justice system that applies First Amendment protections selectively based on politics is not a justice system. It is a political weapon. The defendants' families said outside the courthouse that a dangerous precedent has been set. They are right. I expect you to act before it becomes permanent.