GoKawiilThe U.S. decision targeting Autistici/Inventati should not be read simply as another sanction in Washington’s crackdown on violent extremism. According to Beniamino Irdi, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and CEO of Highground, the more significant point lies elsewhere: for the first time, the logic of material support is being applied openly and forcefully to technological infrastructure. The target is no longer only those who carry out an act, but also those who provide the infrastructure that makes it possible. It is a choice that sets a delicate precedent for European allies and for the balance between security, intelligence and legal safeguards.
Why it matters. The designation marks an unusual use of U.S. counterterrorism sanctions against a European technology collective whose main activity is providing digital infrastructure – from encrypted communications to web hosting.
It also creates a potential point of discussion between Washington, Rome and Brussels: the U.S. designation carries immediate financial consequences under American jurisdiction, but does not automatically place Autistici/Inventati on Italy’s or the European Union’s terrorist lists.
What happened. On August 26, the State Department, working with the Treasury Department, designated Autistici/Inventati (A/I Collective) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order 13224.
The State Department describes A/I as an Italy-based extremist organisation that builds and operates digital infrastructure used by violent Antifa cells and other far-left groups internationally. Washington says its services include encrypted email and chats, web hosting, secure videoconferencing and streaming, anonymity tools and the infrastructure behind the Noblogs platform.
Washington specifically cited the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States and is also on the EU terrorist list. Treasury says Autistici/Inventati was designated for having “materially assisted” or provided technological support, goods or services in support of an act of terrorism
Q: Irdi, what is the most significant element of the U.S. decision?
A: The most interesting part is not so much the sanction against this organization, but the fact that the logic of material support to terrorist organizations is being extended to the infrastructure layer. Washington is looking not only at what an entity does, but at what it enables others to do through its services, including in third countries.
Q: So the United States is not targeting an operational organisation in the traditional sense?
A: Exactly. The United States is not targeting an operational organisation, but an infrastructure. It is an extension of the scope of countermeasures to technical and infrastructure services that can be used by actors considered dangerous. The key point, however, is the principle being established: infrastructure itself can become the object of a countermeasure.
... continue reading