City Journal Audio

Episode Summary: “Who We Are: On Civil Terrorism”

Date: February 3, 2026
Host: Rafael Mangual (B)
Guest: Tal Forkang (A), Legal Policy Fellow, Manhattan Institute

Overview:

This episode explores the emerging phenomenon of “civil terrorism,” a term coined by Tal Forkang. The discussion delves into how coordinated, seemingly minor but disruptive illegal acts are being weaponized to coerce social and policy change, bypassing democratic processes. Forkang dissects the difference between civil disobedience and civil terrorism, highlights links to revolutionary organizations and foreign influence, and outlines loopholes in nonprofit law exploited to shield such activity. The conversation also discusses policy reforms to address these challenges while reflecting on the ideological and historical roots of contemporary protest movements.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Tal Forkang’s Background and Role at MI

• Forkang describes his journey from political theory enthusiast in college to policy researcher at American Enterprise Institute (AEI), through legal education and clerkships, to his current work at the Manhattan Institute. He notes a deep interest in connecting big political ideas to concrete policy debates.
  • Quote [01:17]: “I pinch myself every day that I get paid to do the work that I do…” —Tal Forkang

2. Defining "Civil Terrorism"

• Definition: “The mass commission of seemingly minor crimes to intimidate or coerce a population into adopting unpopular political positions.” (A, [07:36])
• Examples: Protests involving occupying lobbies, trespassing, property defacement, and coordinated noise violations aimed at making life unbearable until specific political demands are met.
• Contrast with Traditional Protest: Unlike classic protest, the goal isn’t persuasion through democratic debate—it’s disruption and compulsion.
  • Quote [08:28]: “All of those actions… are indisputably illegal… You are essentially daring law enforcement to remove you…” —Tal Forkang

3. Political Response and Perverse Incentives

• Rafael points out that large-scale agitation has often bent policy responses in criminal justice (e.g., defunding the police after major unrest).
  • Quote [10:37]: “That was met with sort of bending the knee on the policy front... What bothered me most was that this seemed to be a response to agitation... that I thought was sending a kind of perverse message.” —Rafael Mangual
• Forkang highlights that these groups believe escalating disruption is effective—not losing public favor, but winning capitulation via annoyance or fear.
  • Quote [11:59]: “The more annoying they are, the more effective they think they are being, the more agitating they are, the closer they feel they are to blackmailing you…That is not how this operates.” —Tal Forkang

4. Civil Terrorism vs. Civil Disobedience

• Civil Disobedience: Accepting consequences, highlighting unjust laws, exclusion from democratic processes (e.g., civil rights movement).
• Civil Terrorism: Broad access to democracy, but intentional lawbreaking to bypass persuasion and subvert process.
  • Quote [17:02]: “People who engage in civil disobedience are more than willing to accept the consequences… Civil rights activists were protesting against their exclusion from the democratic process… Today’s civil terrorists have full access to democracy to vote. They never claim that they don’t. They are simply choosing to subvert the democratic process.” —Tal Forkang

5. Shortcuts, Lawfare, and Cultural Shifts

• Societal impatience for democratic grind and a tendency towards shortcutting—labels or litigation instead of debate—marks both left- and right-of-center activism (e.g., delegitimizing arguments by labeling them as “antisemitic” or “verboten”).
  • Quote [26:18]: “That is not a good way to actually go about cultural debate… This is a recurring theme and pattern that I think really characterizes a culture that is so impatient with what it takes to actually have a democracy and a civilization.” —Tal Forkang

6. Who Are the Civil Terrorist Groups?

• The primary driver is opposition to Israel, but similar groups surface in anti-ICE, pro-Maduro, pro-Cuba, pro-Iran, and indigenous rights protests. The common thread: revolutionary, anti-American, anti-liberal constitutional values.
• Many activists are “chronically underemployed… young, disaffected, overeducated Americans.” (A, [33:38])
• The movement is not entirely organic—organized by networks such as Party for Socialism and Liberation, CodePink, and The People’s Forum, bankrolled in part by individuals like Neville Roy Singham, linked to Chinese Communist Party influence.
  • Quote [32:43]: “They are revolutionaries. They are anti American revolutionaries.” —Tal Forkang
  • Quote [37:07]: “He is a rich anti capitalist bro. Right. He’s willing to take advantage of the lucrative opportunities that a free market system has to offer in order to bankroll its demise.” —Tal Forkang

7. Exploiting Legal Loopholes: The Nonprofit Sector and Fiscal Sponsorship

• Fiscal Sponsorship Loophole: Sponsors can shield informal activist entities from transparency and legal liability; these “dark corners” are used to avoid accountability.
• Forkang argues for statutory reform—requiring transparency and attaching legal responsibility to sponsoring organizations if their grantees repeatedly break the law.
  • Quote [41:58]: “With fiscally sponsored entities, there really are no records... Because... I don’t even know where to serve you... The mechanisms... of our systems of legal accountability just totally break down…” —Tal Forkang
• Legislative reforms being explored:
  • Greater transparency for fiscally sponsored groups
  • Legal liability for sponsoring organizations supporting repeat offenders
  • Potential bipartisan appeal as a means of nonprofit sector self-policing

8. Law Enforcement Challenges and Tools

• Simply prosecuting petty offenses en masse is impractical; proposals include elevating group disorderly conduct to a felony.
• Discussion of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act): Difficult because “predicate acts” must be serious felonies, not minor offenses. Civil terrorist groups operate just within the law to avoid triggering more serious charges.
  • Quote [47:37]: “Are you gonna RICO this conversation?” —Rafael Mangual
  • Quote [48:02]: “But there are multiple reasons that prosecutors and former prosecutors will talk about RICO as... a bomb. It’s a big high bar, tough to prove...” —Tal Forkang

9. Foreign Influence and New Threat Vectors

• Singham’s networks and related organizations amplify the risk of transnational support for subversive U.S. activism, with countries like China allegedly more proactive and effective than Soviet actors during the Cold War.
  • Quote [56:51]: “China is quite savvy, quite well moneyed, and quite interested in undermining and subverting the United States from within.” —Tal Forkang

10. Historical Context and Reassurances

• Comparisons to the violent radicalism of the 1970s (Weather Underground, FALN, etc.): Today’s groups are less violent but potentially more insidious due to organization, foreign backing, and modern technology.
  • Quote [54:42]: “The 1970s weren’t so great. So saying that today is not as bad as the 1970s is damnation by faint praise.” —Tal Forkang

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the essence of civil terrorism:
  “The reason I call it civil terrorism is this is the essence of terrorism. It’s civil because it doesn’t use weapons, but it is terroristic in the sense that it is trying to make your life so inconvenient that you simply give them what they want and you... do not negotiate with terrorists.” – Tal Forkang [14:15]

• On the difference with civil rights protests:
  “Civil rights activists were protesting against their exclusion from the democratic process... Today’s civil terrorists have full access to democracy...They are simply choosing to subvert the democratic process.” – Tal Forkang [17:02–19:56]

• On legal reform of fiscal sponsorship:
  “Closing that loophole is pretty easy. I think it could have bipartisan appeal...” – Tal Forkang [44:13]

• On optimism for legislative action:
  “It is good news that, that, like the law is just, the law is on the side of decent Americans and it might take a little bit of time, but the law will be applied...” – Tal Forkang [57:35]

Selected Timestamps for Key Segments

• Forkang’s Journey and Early Interests: [00:31–05:56]
• Defining and Exemplifying Civil Terrorism: [07:09–10:37]
• Contrasting Civil Terrorism with Civil Rights Era Protest: [15:05–19:56]
• Civil Disobedience vs. Civil Terrorism—Key Distinctions: [16:53–19:56]
• Organizational Structure and Foreign Influence: [32:43–37:07]
• Nonprofit Legal Loopholes and Solutions: [40:55–44:13]
• Debate Over Law Enforcement Responses (e.g., RICO): [47:15–51:05]
• Advice from Activists’ Legal Counsel: [51:05–53:38]
• Historical Context; 1970s vs. Today: [54:42–56:51]
• Forkang’s Optimism for Legislative Reform: [57:35–58:56]

Conclusion & Forward Look

Tal Forkang remains cautiously optimistic, seeing real opportunities for bipartisan legal reform to close loopholes that shelter disruptive, subversive organizations. Forkang argues that with greater transparency, accountability, and appropriate legal tools, the law will ultimately prevail—and that safeguarding the civil order is paramount for the health of American democracy.

For listeners seeking to understand both the theory and the practical realities of confrontational protest movements and the policy responses they demand, this episode offers an in-depth, clear-eyed exploration.