In recent weeks, a disturbing development has surfaced in Portland, Oregon: flyers and online posts that appear to be a “hit list” targeting journalists, livestreamers and other individuals for their coverage of law‑enforcement encounters and protests. These materials—purportedly attributed to members or sympathisers of the loose anti‑fascist network Antifa—have prompted serious warnings from media organisations, civil‑rights groups and law‑enforcement observers. This investigation dives into what has been uncovered, how credible it is, the responses already underway, and why the implications could be far‑reaching.

What Has Emerged & How It Was Discovered

On November 2 2025, the Washington Examiner reported that in Portland physical flyers were posted on telephone poles listing journalists, right‑wing media figures and livestreamers, presenting them as targets. The flyer bore the heading “Far‑Right ‘Content Creators’ [Be On The Lookout]” and included photos, screen‑names and ages of individuals.

Details emerging from interviews with those targeted include:

One freelance reporter said:

When I first saw that floating around … I will not stop; I will not be bullied or threatened into stopping my coverage.”

The list included live‑streamers who had covered recent anti‑immigration enforcement protests in South Portland (inside city limits), where law‑enforcement agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were present.

This is not the first time such lists have appeared: one of the individuals mentioned said this was at least the second “hit list” they found themselves on this year. Additional context:

The broader category of warnings about Antifa‑linked violence is not new. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has in the past described “antifa” as a movement of concern, warning local and state agencies of potential violent confrontations.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana a legal case revealed that the state police circulated a document titled “full list of antifa.docx” which appears to have originated from neo‑Nazi websites, raising questions of authenticity and contamination with extremist misinformation.

Why the “Hit List” Matters

This development raises a number of serious issues:

1. Threat to press freedom and safety of journalistsWhen individuals who are reporting on protests and law enforcement are placed on publicly posted lists with personal details and labels such as “Be On The Lookout,” it raises the risk of harassment, stalking, intimidation or worse. One targeted livestreamer told the Washington Examiner that they felt they were now “open game” for retaliation.

2. Escalation of protest violence / targeted intimidationThe existence of targeted lists suggests that some participants in protests may be moving from reactive behavior into proactive threat‑making. Whether or not the lists lead to physical violence, the chilling effect alone is significant. It raises the question of whether these lists are symbolic or operational.

The Louisiana case shows how supposedly authentic lists connected to “Antifa” can actually originate from neo‑Nazi sources or extremist websites, meaning that some of these “hit lists” might be bogus, designed to discredit activists or stoke panic.

4. Legal and law‑enforcement implicationsIf these lists are tied to organized efforts or coordinated actions, they could be treated as evidence of harassment, conspiracy or domestic‑terrorism type activity. Agencies such as DHS are already monitoring related trends.

Credibility of the Lists: What We Know and What We Don’t

Known facts:

The Washington Examiner located a flyer physically posted in Portland with evident targeting of individuals.

The individuals targeted have confirmed seeing the lists and are taking the threat seriously.

The anti‑fascist movement (Antifa) is generally described by authorities as leaderless, decentralised and without a formal structure—raising questions about who is behind such lists.

Uncertainties & caveats:

It is not clear who created the list—whether grassroots activists, radical off‑shoots, provocateurs or hostile actors posing as Antifa.

There is no verified instance yet (publicly) of these lists resulting in confirmed physical violence (at least per available reporting).

Because “Antifa” is a broad label applied to many groups, the link between the flyers and mainstream antifa activism remains ambiguous.

Given prior cases of fraudulent lists made by extremists, the authenticity or intent of this list requires careful vetting.

Responses & Warnings Issued

Following the exposure of these lists, a number of responses have emerged:

Media organisations covering the story have issued internal warnings to staff about being aware of physical surveillance, changed behaviour and threats.

Civil‑rights groups and journalist safety organisations are urging reporters and livestreamers in protest‑zones to vary their schedules, avoid predictable patterns and consider protective measures (such as anonymised by‑lines or masking their living addresses).

Law‑enforcement agencies (local and federal) are reportedly reviewing the flyer incident as a potential criminal matter—either intimidation or threat‑making. Although details are scarce, the DHS’s broader warnings on antifa‑linked violence show the federal interest in such matters.

On the public front, commentators on social‑media and Reddit are questioning both the origin of the lists and urging caution in accepting all claims at face value:

I have seen this quote everywhere … most people were just sharing the quote.”

Potential Implications and Risks

A. For journalism and documentation of protestsIn an era where livestreaming and citizen‑reporting are becoming central to protest coverage, targeted lists risk narrowing the ability of reporters to safely operate. If reporters must fear being singled out for simply filming, the transparency chain between public events and media oversight could degrade.

B. For protest movements and counter‑movements
The existence of lists may promote self‑censorship among protest participants or media observers, which benefits state or law‑enforcement actors who rely on lack of visibility. On the flip side, if militant activists believe they are being surveilled by targeted individuals (e.g., right‑wing media), the risk of confrontation rises.

C. For law‑enforcement and public‑safety agenciesTargeted lists could signal a shift from spontaneous protest violence into more structured acts of intimidation or harassment. Agencies may treat this as a precursor to violence, requiring greater resource allocation, surveillance and preventive operations.

D. For information warfare and disinformation
Given the history of fake “Antifa member lists” being circulated on extremist forums (e.g., the Louisiana case) the risk is high that such materials serve as provocations or false‑flag operations. That complicates the ability of law‑enforcement to attribute intent and of media to filter credibility.

What to Monitor Going Forward

To understand how serious this situation becomes, the following indicators will be important:

Verification of authorship – Are the flyers traceable to known individuals or groups? Do they have links to radical networks, domestic extremist groups or are they impersonations?

Incidents of targeted violence – Will individuals listed face harassment, assault, doxxing, or vandalism? Will law‑enforcement link such incidents to the flyer campaign?

Legal action or injunctions – Will those listed pursue restraining orders, or will law‑enforcement pursue charges such as conspiracy to intimidate, stalking or domestic terror designation?

Media behaviour changes – Will journalists alter their coverage patterns, increase safety protocols or pull back from protest zones?

Disinformation investigations – Will the origin, chain of custody and truthfulness of the lists be subject to forensic analysis? Will government entities issue official alerts?

Final Thoughts

The uncovering of a “hit list” ostensibly circulated by Antifa‑aligned actors targeting journalists and content‑creators is undeniably alarming. Whether this is the work of militant faction, lone actors, provocateurs or disinformation agents remains unresolved—but the threat signal is real. At minimum it points to a transition in protest‑related risk from crowd violence to targeted harassment; at worst it foreshadows a future where protest documentation itself becomes a dangerous activity.

For journalists, activists and public‑safety officials alike, the implications span personal safety, freedom of the press and the dynamics of protest‑reporting in the digital age. The emergence of explicit listing of names, photographs and identifying details signals that the old rules of coverage—visibility, public presence, minimal risk—are shifting. In this climate, the notion of “being on camera” may no longer protect but expose.

As always, vigilance matters—but so does verification. The existence of authentic threats must not be conflated with the spread of panic or misinformation. A measured yet proactive response will be critical: tracking origin, assessing risk, taking protective steps and ensuring that press freedom is not compromised by intimidation campaigns.