Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration security official, is sounding the alarm over a hard-edged political alliance he says is quietly gaining ground in plain sight. His warning centers on a mix of far-left activists and Islamist groups that, despite obvious differences, he believes are pulling in the same dangerous direction.
Gaffney describes this as a “red-green alliance,” a phrase used for cooperation between radical left movements and Islamist networks. In his view, the overlap is not some random protest-side curiosity, but a strategic pairing built around hostility to America, Western institutions, and the constitutional order.
He argued that the relationship makes sense only if the deeper motive is power, not principle. The two camps may dream of different endgames, but Gaffney said they can still work together when the target is the United States itself.
“One can argue that the Sharia supremacists are pursuing communism with a God, or at least a patina, a veneer of religiosity to it,” Gaffney explained. “Fundamentally, they’re at the hip in totalitarianism. Yes, with different outcomes in mind, but still perfectly willing to make common cause for the immediate shared objective of destroying the United States, which stands in the way of either of their ambitions.”
The controversy has spilled into broader debates about the Democratic Socialists of America and the growing visibility of anti-Israel activism on the left. Gaffney said the issue goes beyond campus slogans or street protests and cuts directly into national security concerns that too many people are brushing off.
He pointed to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that examined the Muslim Brotherhood network in America as another sign that the subject is no longer on the fringe. During that hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz questioned whether groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Democratic Socialists of America were part of the same broader “Red-Green Alliance.”
That framing has become especially combustible because it ties ideology to real-world organizing. Supporters of the theory say the cooperation shows up in protests, messaging, and coalition building that blur the line between domestic radical politics and transnational Islamist goals.
Gaffney, who later founded the Center for Security Policy and now leads the Institute for the American Future, has spent years warning about this kind of convergence. He says the common thread is not policy detail, but a shared contempt for American power and the system that protects it.
He also insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not just a symbolic target, but a practical barrier to both movements. In his telling, that is why the alliance matters so much, because the people involved may differ on theology or economics, but they are united by what they want to tear down.
The “red-green alliance” idea has drawn attention from Muslim critics of radical Islamism too. Some argue that the danger is not hypothetical at all, especially when anti-Western rhetoric starts turning into organized political action with a broader reach.
Muslim scholar Dalia Ziada has been among those sounding the alarm, warning that the fusion of radical Islamism and the radical left threatens the United States, American politics, and Western society. She described it as a “sinful marriage” between groups that hate liberal democracy and want to see it collapse.
The subject has also gained urgency because of the scale of modern activism. A Fox News Digital investigation found roughly 425 organizations spanning communist groups, Muslim advocacy organizations and anti-Israel activist coalitions involved in a coordinated transnational protest network with about $1 billion in annual revenue.
That kind of money and organization gives the debate a sharper edge. It is one thing to talk about ideology in theory, but another when a sprawling network can feed protests, messaging campaigns, and political pressure at once, all while keeping the temperature high and the lines between groups intentionally blurry.
