I don't live in the US, but speaking from experience as a self-labeled anarchist of three years in a western country, libs when I tell them I'm an anarchist will basically always be like, "I'm so glad you're not one of them tankies!", and will then patronize me as some sort of utopian. As opposed to treat me with active hostility and suspicion like they treat MLs ("tankies").

But, naturally, the libs don't know anything about anything, so the moment I start saying "tankie" stuff — like saying that violence is a justifiable way to fight against a violent system, saying that I don't care about optics or electoralism, saying that self-labeling as an ally for a marginalized group does not make it a fact, focusing more of my energy on critiquing liberal democracy than AES, saying that I openly ally with MLs, and telling libs to go read a book other than Harry Potter for once — that's when I'll often get met with more hostility per se, regardless of if what I'm saying is actually a deviation from anarchist thought or not.

So yes, in my experience, anarchism is essentially a low-barrier entrypoint into leftist thought in the west. Most anarchists will be seen as essentially just foolish little children who pose no real threat, but other anarchists will be faced with hostility and repression. Don't forget that the FBI Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide includes a section dedicated specifically to anarchist symbolism.

Many "baby leftist" anarchists in the west will be electoralists focused on optics, be bad allies and pacifists, never read theory, never form coalitions or join orgs, and most importantly, will focus more of their energy on critiquing AES than liberal democracy. This is what makes most anarchists be deemed as "less of a threat", a group that can be more easily compartmentalized and pacified under capitalism. And this was why whenever I would talk politics to libs, I would always feel like they saw me almost as if I were part of the status quo that they upheld.