Center for American Progress

Donate

Center for American Progress

Protecting Constitutional Freedoms of Speech and Assembly During the Second Trump Administration
Report

Protecting Constitutional Freedoms of Speech and Assembly During the Second Trump Administration

As the Trump administration attacks the social fabric of the United States, the continued peaceful resistance of Americans will turn the tide against democratic backsliding.

Restoring Social Trust in Democracy, Democracy, Immigration, +3 More

Media Contact

[email protected]

Government Affairs

[email protected]

In this article
People participate in the “No Kings” protest in El Segundo, California, on March 28, 2026. (Getty/Jay L. Clendenin)

Introduction and summary

American citizens have a proud tradition of asserting their discontent through peaceful protest. From the Boston Tea Party1 to No Kings Day,2 protest is a foundational practice in U.S. history and one of the most patriotic things a citizen can do. It is so important, in fact, that the nation’s founders enshrined core tenets of free expression in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.3 The current divisive political climate has Americans coming out in droves to peacefully protest the harms of the Trump administration.4 However, those who voice disagreement with this administration are facing harsh threats to their constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly,5 and in some cases, to their very life and liberty.6 The killings of Renée Good7 and Alex Pretti8 at the hands of federal immigration officers have sparked rightful outrage9 at the aggression of government actors toward those protesting or merely observing their actions.10

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

The Trump administration has indicated that its full political will is dedicated to cracking down on dissent through aggressive politically directed prosecution and intimidation,11 echoing the political repression of the darkest moments in American history. In the past, the U.S. government has utilized powers of repression in times of war or intense fear.12 Abraham Lincoln commanded the shuttering of certain newspapers and the arrest of their editors during the Civil War,13 while antiwar protestors were arrested for antidraft speech during World War I.14 Such fearmongering not only led to the suppression of free speech and protest but was used to support horrific attacks against marginalized communities. For example, racism and wartime paranoia wrongly convinced the U.S. government that Japanese Americans were colluding with the nation of Japan during World War II, and it forcibly held more than 120,000 people of Japanese descent—two-thirds of whom were American citizens—in internment camps for supposed national security concerns that were never based on evidence.15 These fear-based justifications for violent suppressions of civil liberties have echoes in the actions of the U.S. government today.

The Trump administration has indicated that its full political will is dedicated to cracking down on dissent through aggressive politically directed prosecution and intimidation, echoing the political repression of the darkest moments in American history.

Americans from every part of society can confront a government that runs roughshod over the rule of law and their liberties—citizens by making their voices heard through protest and voting, judges by continuing to protect protest and speech instead of bowing to the wants of a despotic executive, and members of the military and federal officers by following the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which mandates disobeying illegal orders,16 especially those that are unconstitutional. Moreover, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle must remember their oath to the Constitution17 and use every tool at their disposal to rein in the executive branch’s abuses of civil liberties.

Demonstrators gather to march calling for an end to ICE operations in Minnesota on January 30, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Getty/John Moore)
Demonstrators gather to march calling for an end to ICE operations in Minnesota on January 30, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Getty/John Moore)

War and fear weaponized

A single sentence in the Bill of Rights—the First Amendment—protects every American from being silenced by their government. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.18

These protections have allowed countless citizens to peacefully express their opinion, no matter how controversial the content.19 As this section highlights, American governments have attempted to stifle these distinct but interconnected freedoms for almost as long as they have existed.

See also:

The First Amendment protects a range of activities, but most important among them is Americans’ right to be critical of their government without fear of reprisal. This freedom allows journalists to conduct the crucial reporting that brings to light news the American public needs to know.20 Free speech protections even shield views that most Americans would find offensive, such as much of the hateful rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan.21 In a statement explaining its legal defense of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 2012, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Eastern Missouri stated, “If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”22 A selective application of civil liberties such as the freedom of speech would endanger the promise of freedom the Constitution makes to every American.

Wartime “necessity”

Yet throughout U.S. history, wartime has been used as an excuse to allow for the dampening of civil liberties. Criticism of the government often has been considered seditious in such moments, but such an outlook is antithetical to the founding principles of the nation.

In 1798, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law as so-called “war measures” to support the nascent country in an undeclared conflict with France known as the Quasi War.23 The acts consisted of four separate laws: three regarding citizenship and the treatment of foreign residents and the Sedition Act.24 The Sedition Act banned “false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against” the U.S. government, the president, or Congress.25 Ten people were convicted under the act, including newspaper editors associated with the minority party, the Democratic-Republicans.26 One Democratic-Republican congressman was arrested and convicted for his public writings against President Adams, in which he claimed that Adams was seizing power.27 Ironically, his arrest proved this very point. Another man was imprisoned under the act for drunkenly musing that he did not mind if Adams were shot in the rear by a cannon.28 Both purposeful statements and off-handed comments were policed by a government founded on the principle of free speech and political dissent just a few years prior. The Sedition Act of 1798 expired in 1801, and the nation was better for it.29 John Adams himself was seemingly reluctant to sign the law.30 In fact, he was quoted as saying, “I regret not the repeal of the Alien or Sedition Law, which were never favorites with me.”31 The Sedition Act has been criticized by contemporaries and historians alike as an egregious attack on the core principles of the nation.32 Thomas Jefferson wrote:

For my own part, I consider these laws an experiment on the American mind to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the constitution.  If this goes down, we shall immediately see attempted another act of Congress declaring that the President shall continue in Office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life.33

Jefferson’s description perfectly captures the slippery slope of restricting free speech. This was precisely the sort of illiberalism and denial of democratic freedoms over which Americans had just fought a war.34 However, the Sedition Act’s suppression of free speech was posed as a necessary evil to fight off a supposedly existential threat to the nation.35 Such rhetoric would be echoed for centuries to come, with similarly restrictive measures enacted during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II on the basis of wartime necessity.36 During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln censored the free press by commanding the arrest and closure of certain newspapers37 for publishing false statements regarding the war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus,38 which allows detainees to challenge their imprisonment in court. Shortly after the United States entered World War I, Congress passed the overly broad Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalized conveying information to interfere with the war effort39 and allowed the Postmaster General to block the mailing of material that critiqued U.S. involvement in the war.40 Antiwar activists were arrested under the Espionage Act for merely distributing leaflets that opposed the draft.41 The Sedition Act of 1918 amended the Espionage Act, strengthening this government authority to curb any political speech seen as criticizing the draft, the war effort, the government, or the flag.42 The act was repealed in 1921 after the war ended.43

Even in times of peace, the United States has suppressed the civil liberties of its citizens.

Peacetime fears

Even in times of peace the United States has suppressed the civil liberties of its citizens. Throughout the 20th century, government fearmongers weaponized legal systems to suppress or enact state violence against supposedly subversive political groups.

Legislatively, the Smith and McCarran Acts were used to criminalize ideology and neutralize suspected communists, creating a chilling effect on free speech.44 Officials used injunctions and permit denials, as well as violent law enforcement tactics, to block civil rights marches.45 Simultaneously, the FBI utilized illegal warrantless surveillance and infiltration to disrupt civil rights and antiwar groups,46 actions that eventually led to the establishment of much-needed congressional oversight.47 This selective application of laws, disproportionate use of force, and shameful abuse of government power against the very citizens who empowered the government is an evident assault on constitutional freedoms.

The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) publicly shamed political subversives.48 Originally focused on fascist sympathizers in the 1930s, the committee soon shifted focus to rooting out communism.49 HUAC hearings in the 1940s and 1950s led to the blacklisting and social exile of the unlucky individuals subject to these hearings.50 The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, was another expansive antisedition law created in response to the possibility of another war in Europe and the rise of communism.51 Similarly, the Internal Security Act of 1950, known as the McCarran Act,52 was written with the purpose of suppressing communist action that was supposedly a danger to the U.S. government. President Harry Truman vetoed this bill, stating it was “a long step toward totalitarianism,” but Congress overrode his veto and the McCarran Act became law.53 These laws did not solely criminalize violent action or conspiracy, but advocated a certain ideology and had an immense chilling effect on political speech and assembly.54 Under the McCarran Act, communist organizations were forced to register with the government, and the president was allowed to detain individuals suspected of espionage or sabotage during a national emergency.55 This fear of communism swelled in the 1950s, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spearheaded the naming and blacklisting of suspected communists and the stoking of public fear.56 This era—defined by government-sponsored witch hunts of speech and association—sullied the constitutional promise of free expression.

Eventually, both provisions of the McCarran Act were repealed. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board that such registration of an individual violated the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination protections.57 In 1971, Congress repealed the detainment provision, known as the Emergency Detention Act, and codified the following protection as the Non-Detention Act:58 “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”59

When signing the bill that repealed the detainment provision, President Richard Nixon admitted that Americans were concerned that it could be used to imprison people for having unpopular views.60 Such a worry surely had a chilling effect, especially in the context of the political repression that was characteristic of the decades prior. Though Nixon emphasized that the provision was never invoked and such fears may be unwarranted, he said that “there is no place in American life for the kind of anxiety … which the Emergency Detention Act has evidently engendered.”61 Even the suggestion of suppression is a dangerous thing.

Beyond the public campaign against left-wing groups, there was a covert element of state suppression of political dissidence. For 15 years, the FBI, helmed by J. Edgar Hoover, ran a series of surveillance and infiltration operations through the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO)62 into political groups it aimed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize.”63 Undercover federal agents infiltrated civil rights, socialist, and antiwar groups,64 wiretapping their phones without warrants, blackmailing leaders, and stirring internal discontent.65 In March 1971, activists broke into an FBI field office and later released the files they found.66 All in all, “COINTELPRO was responsible for at least 204 burglaries by FBI agents, the use of 1,300 informants, the theft of 12,600 documents, 20,000 illegal wiretap days and 12,000 bug days.”67 The American government waged a full-fledged, illegal reconnaissance operation against its own citizens. COINTELPRO outraged the country, and the program was eventually discontinued.68

Around that same time, President Nixon was plagued by another, more personal scandal related to his abuse of surveillance.69 His administration compiled lists of political enemies and used government surveillance resources to track them. Nixon and top government aides wiretapped both his own staff and his political rivals, and they explicitly strategized how they could “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,” of which they had a running list.70  Though this famously culminated in the Watergate scandal,71 the aforementioned abuses leading up to the Watergate Hotel break-in were themselves an abuse of executive power.

The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, more famously known as the Church Committee, was formed in response to these scandals. It found that excessive, unaccountable intelligence operations had been occurring domestically and abroad since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration.72 Following the Church Committee, in 1976, the Senate established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to provide “vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”73 Then, in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was signed into law, requiring the executive branch to seek approval from a newly formed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to conduct surveillance on American citizens.74 Even this legislative fix is imperfect, as the FISC lacks transparency,75 and successive administrations have expanded surveillance authorities. Congress amended FISA through the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act in response to the War on Terror and made these protections less robust, allowing for surveillance with a wider scope and less oversight.76

This era was also defined by explicit, often violent suppression of protest. During the Civil Rights Movement, police officers often used excessive force against activists, attacking them with water hoses, dogs, and batons.77 Such visceral images shocked the nation and pivotally struck the conscience of many.78

Firemen bear in on a group of African Americans who sought shelter in a doorway as hoses and dogs were used in routing antisegregation demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 3, 1963. (Getty)

Local government officials weaponized local law by denying permits to prevent assembly.79 State and local officials frequently sought injunctions to block marches and protests.80 Due to their wide discretion, prosecutors often charged peaceful protestors with vague or broadly applied statutes such as breach of peace laws,81 which criminalize speech that is disorderly or disturbs the peace. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in 1963 for disobeying a protest injunction.82 While in jail, he wrote his famous essay, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” which advocated for the civil rights movement:83

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.84

Selective application of laws intended to subdue nonviolent political dissent is an assault on constitutional freedoms. It is the weaponization of the rule of law.

Selective application of laws intended to subdue nonviolent political dissent is an assault on constitutional freedoms. It is the weaponization of the rule of law.
Mary Ann Vecchio kneels over the body of Kent State University student Jeffrey Miller, who had been shot during an antiwar demonstration on the university campus in Kent, Ohio, on May 4, 1970. (Getty/Howard Ruffner)

In 1970, students at Kent State University erupted into protest against the expansion of the Vietnam War.85 The governor deployed the Ohio National Guard to campus for a few days to quell the protests.86 On May 4, 28 members of the guard fired rounds into a disorderly crowd of demonstrators.87 This barrage of violence killed four students—three protestors and one woman walking to class—and wounded nine others.88 The shock of the Kent State massacre reverberated across the country.89 Students at hundreds of campuses across the country went on strike.90 Though the guardsmen attested that they acted in self-defense and were not found legally responsible,91 other witnesses and analysts claimed that the guardsmen’s response was unwarranted.92 The commission that President Nixon created in response to the massacre and the subsequent strike found that while “[t]he actions of some students were violent and criminal and those of some others were dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible … [t]he indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.”93 The disproportionate response of the Ohio National Guard against student protestors was an immense tragedy—but it also indicated a shift toward heightened polarization in American culture and a broader awareness of state violence.94

The legal case for protest

The Supreme Court notably began shaping the boundaries of the First Amendment through cases in the 20th century. Such as in other areas of jurisprudence, each era of the court has approached free expression cases differently—some being more restrictive than others.95 When a court reviews a free expression case where speech is restricted based on the content of the message, the judge employs a form of review known as strict scrutiny.96 When strict scrutiny is applied, the action is assumed to be unconstitutional, and the onus is on the government to prove otherwise.97 This is historically recognized as a high bar for the government to clear—a vast majority of actions reviewed under strict scrutiny are struck down.98 Content-neutral restrictions on speech—such as time, place, and manner restrictions—are held to a slightly lower standard known as intermediate scrutiny.99 Government actions can pass an intermediate scrutiny review if they are found to further an “important government interest” instead of the more rigorous “compelling state interest” required under strict scrutiny.100 While restrictions under both reviews must be narrowly tailored, under strict scrutiny, the law must be the least-restrictive option, whereas that is not the case under intermediate scrutiny.101

Mary Beth Tinker and her brother, John, display two black armbands, the objects of the U.S. Supreme Court's agreement March 4 to hear arguments on how far public schools may go in limiting the wearing of political symbols. (Getty)

TABLE 1

Scroll to the section

The current American landscape

The second Trump administration has demonstrated a clear hostility toward Americans exercising their right to dissent.102 Though President Trump was by no means welcoming to dissent during his first term,103 his second term is exceedingly more repressive, mirroring authoritarian regimes in other nations.104 It has targeted political opponents with investigations and attempted indictments,105 deployed the military and federal agents in American cities,106 fanned tensions between communities,107 encouraged state violence against protestors, and even incidentally hurt bystanders.108

Violence against protestors

Americans all across the country have been protesting the current Trump administration, outpacing protests of the first term.109 There has been a particular focus on the inhumane immigration enforcement strategies that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been employing.110 Though protests were widely peaceful, tensions flared in June 2025 in Los Angeles as ICE officers came face-to-face with civilian protesters and bystanders.111 Local authorities were handling the issue, but President Trump deployed federalized National Guard troops and active-duty Marines, against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) objections.112 Trump also deployed the National Guard to Washington D.C., Portland, Memphis, and Chicago.113 In addition to various lower-court decisions that have blocked many of those deployments,114 the Supreme Court recently ruled that the president was not allowed to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois.115 Subsequently, the Trump administration announced that it would cease National Guard deployments in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.116

Minneapolis

DHS operations in Minneapolis in December 2025 led to tense interactions between federal agents and protestors, including one in which an ICE officer knelt on a protester’s back.117 The administration then announced that it would send 2,000 immigration officers to the city in what ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons called the “largest immigration operation ever.”118 This operation was supposedly a response to an alleged local fraud scandal119—though that seems like an excuse for an aggressive expansion of immigration enforcement.120 The surge in immigration enforcement galvanized the community. Concerns over the negative impact DHS activity near schools could have on children and their families121 led neighbors to carefully observe school drop-offs.122 Then on the day after the DHS announcement, after dropping off her 6-year-old at school,123 Renée Good’s vehicle was surrounded by federal agents, who ordered her to exit.124 Good began to drive away, and one officer shot into her car, striking her three times.125 DHS agents refused to allow a physician bystander to help, and Good did not receive CPR in the 10 minutes after she was injured before emergency medical services arrived.126 Although Good eventually received medical attention, she died a half hour later.127

Just a few weeks later, on January 24, Alex Pretti—an ICU nurse at the local veterans’ hospital—was killed while shielding a fellow protestor.128 Pretti was initially filming the interactions of immigration officers in the area and directing traffic,129 but when another protestor was shoved by DHS officers, he put himself between the woman and the officers, protecting her, while keeping his arms raised, likely to show he was not a threat.130 Nonetheless, the immigration agents then pepper sprayed Pretti, tackled him, and pinned him to the ground.131 They took his legally owned and concealed firearm from his waist band, disarming him, and fired multiple shots into him.132 Alex Pretti was pronounced dead at the scene.133

The Insurrection Act: A last resort

Trump once again threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, this time in Minneapolis.134 The Insurrection Act is a series of laws that empower the president to deploy federal troops domestically to stop an insurrection or a state’s unconstitutional behavior.135 It has only been invoked 30 times.136 Reportedly, 1,500 active-duty soldiers were told to stand by for deployment in the city but were later told to stand down.137 Such a domestic deployment of troops should only be invoked as a last resort, when a state government is the perpetrator of or does not have the capacity intervene against “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that deprives people of their constitutional rights or “obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”138 Heavily armed troops in the streets will likely exacerbate rather than quell violence. When Marines were deployed in Los Angeles during the 1992 Los Angeles riots in the wake of the killing of Rodney King, these combat-trained troops did not have the same rules regarding the use of force as civilian law enforcement, leading to near-fatal consequences for civilians.139 In one case, when a police officer asked for “cover,” he meant for the officers and Marines around him to ready their weapons, but the Marines did as they were trained and “covered” with firepower, firing more than 200 bullets into a house where children were present.140 Remarkably, no one was killed. Combat troops are not meant to police civilians. Even the domestic deployment of the National Guard, which has experience working domestically,141 must be handled carefully. National guardsmen have clear requirements, dictated by statute, for how they can engage with civilians.142 Any deployment of the National Guard as a manner of civilian law enforcement, such as the proposed quick reaction forces for crowd control as outlined by a Pentagon memo,143 must be heavily scrutinized. These reaction forces are discussed further in the section of this report that tackles possible areas of concern regarding the freedom of protest.

In their continued violence in Minneapolis, DHS agents have failed a core tenet of the department’s mission: to “safeguard the American people.”144 And these actions are symptomatic of what is happening across the nation to citizens and noncitizens alike. The U.S. government is not only ruthlessly attacking and killing civilians, but it is also blaming them for their own deaths. Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem claimed that Renée Good was going to hit ICE agents with her car so was shot in self-defense, and that Good was engaging in “act of domestic terrorism.”145 Vice President JD Vance quickly argued that Good was to blame for her own death.146 However, multiple independent analyses note that Renée Good was turning her car away from the agents when she was shot.147 Similarly, Noem initially claimed that Alex Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon with intent to harm law enforcement officers when he was killed.148 Senior U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official Greg Bovino said that Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”149 Yet video evidence filmed by citizen observers proves that is not the case: Alex Pretti was not reaching for his weapon and instead had his hands up and was acting as a human shield for his fellow Minnesotan against state violence.150 If everyone who protests is a terrorist, then that can be used as a pretext for their disenfranchisement, arrest, or death. This administration wants Americans to believe its propaganda over what they can see with their own eyes.

Minneapolis residents, Minnesotans, and Americans all over the country came out to remember Alex Pretti and Renée Good and protest ICE in their cities.151 Tensions flared in the Twin Cities especially,152 where federal agents used tear gas and other less-lethal but still dangerous munitions against protesters.153 These unsafe tactics were used so recklessly that even uninvolved bystanders were caught in the crossfire.154 A family of eight, including an infant, were tear gassed in their car coming back from a youth basketball game.155 As a result, the infant experienced breathing difficulties and was hospitalized in serious condition.156 This horrific incident highlights how aggressive tactics can harm the targets of such violence (warranted or otherwise) and bystanders alike. Though the operation in Minneapolis was formally ended on February 12, 2026,157 locals in the suburbs of Minneapolis are pointing out that aggressive DHS enforcement is still occurring.158 However, the protests of Minnesotans and all those who stood in solidarity with them is an incredible example of collective action.

As the video evidence mentioned above shows, claims of self-defense from the Trump administration are implausible.159 In addition to the administration quickly publicly blaming the victims in these incidents,160 some DHS agents have allegedly used them as taunts to other protestors: “‘You guys gotta stop obstructing us – that’s why that lesbian b—- is dead,’”161 and “‘you raise your voice, I will erase your voice.’”162 Though details are still emerging, one thing is clear: These immigration agents are acting with impunity, and the current administration likely will not hold them accountable. The administration initially refused to investigate the officer who killed Renée Good163 and instead is investigating her widow,164 and the DOJ has refused to aid the state investigations into the murders of Good and Pretti.165 In fact, Minnesota recently sued the federal government for withholding evidence from these state investigations.166 The DOJ’s  prosecutorial noncooperation, as well as the shuttering of three internal DHS watchdog agencies,167 only adds to the general air of infallibility that the administration holds. It is extremely dangerous for a government to think it is beyond fault or reproach, as it makes it feel entitled to do whatever it pleases.

Suppression of speech

The Trump administration is using rhetoric similar to that used in support of past antisedition legislation when there was “rampant fear of the enemy within.”168 The president is positioning his vendetta against cities he views as progressive as a “war from within,”169 morphing ideological opponents into “domestic terrorists,”170 and he and his allies declare that the protestors who speak out against them are paid actors or agitators.171 These framings attempt to justify the government’s constriction of First Amendment rights.172 In the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7),173 the president seeks to target “domestic terrorist organizations” despite the fact that domestic terrorism is not a standalone crime nor is there a statute authorizing the designation of domestic terrorist organizations.174 Furthermore, the memorandum appears to both be overly vague, targeting Antifa despite the fact that it is a decentralized movement rather than a single organization,175 and also unconstitutionally target actors based on their viewpoint, such as being anti-American, anticapitalist, anti-Christianity, or hostile to “traditional” American values.176 Consequently, it seems possible that the administration will target a series of good-faith civil society actors who are merely exercising their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech, affiliation, assembly, press, and religion.177 The order instructs federal agencies to investigate organizations with views that the president finds unfavorable.178 Similarly, after the release of the NSPM-7, Trump and Stephen Miller began targeting key organizations in the progressive movement, such as the grassroots organizing group Indivisible and the philanthropic group the Open Society Foundation, alleging they have supported violence.179 However, experts note that this is likely a retributive move not made in good faith.180 Several Republican members of Congress have aggressively targeted nonprofits.181 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has attempted to tie progressive nonprofits to political violence and legislatively empower the DOJ to target these groups through RICO charges.182 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN), chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) launched an investigation into nongovernmental organizations, including religious organizations, for providing crucial humanitarian services to immigrants and refugees.183 These investigations appear to be fueled by political machinations rather than actual safety concerns.

Presidential actions have targeted major law firms,184 likely for representing or employing Trump’s adversaries.185 These orders, among other things, suspended the security clearances of firm lawyers and barred them from federal buildings.186 By threatening law firms early on in its tenure, the second Trump administration may make it harder for protestors and political dissidents to receive counsel, as firms and lawyers may fear retribution. Many firms have been making changes to their pro bono dockets, reportedly deciding against picking up cases that may be politically unfavorable to the administration to avoid retribution.187

The Trump administration’s attacks on civil society also extend to the media and have only gotten bolder as the president’s tenure continues. The administration restricted The Associated Press’ access to presidential events because it refused to use its preferred term for the Gulf of Mexico,188 broadly restricted press access at the White House,189 and forced out of the Pentagon dozens of reporters who refused to agree to censor their coverage.190 When Jimmy Kimmel shared a series of unpopular views on his late night show regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr warned ABC to take action against Kimmel “the easy way or the hard way,” apparently threatening its broadcast licenses.191 Under this regulatory pressure, Kimmel was suspended but eventually reinstated following a massive public outcry.192

More recently, journalists have been facing more blatant attacks. In January 2026, the FBI seized electronic devices from the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of a probe into her source as part of a government leak investigation.193 Natanson has recently reported extensively on the federal government and is known as the Post’s “federal government whisperer.”194 This unprecedented search and seizure likely violated Natanson’s and the Post’s First Amendment protections. In one of their joint filings in federal court, Natanson and the Post stated that “[t]he seizure chills speech, cripples reporting and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on protected materials.”195 In addition to seizing data beyond the scope of the warrant and investigation, by seizing the reporter’s devices, the government exercised prior restraint—prohibiting expression before it happens—on her work, an act which is often found unconstitutional.196 A federal judge later rejected the government’s request to search Natanson’s devices, opining that it “is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse.”197 Just two weeks after seizing Natanson’s devices, former CNN anchor Don Lemon and local independent journalist Georgia Fort were arrested for covering an ICE protest in a house of worship.198 The federal charges against Lemon and Ford do not differentiate between their coverage as press and the actions of the protestors—all parties were charged with “conspiracy against the right of religious freedom at a place of worship and injuring, intimidating and interfering with the exercise of right of religious freedom at a place of worship.”199 This sets a dangerous precedent and is likely unconstitutional. It is a journalist’s job and civic duty to cover the news, even when it is controversial.

These attacks on journalists and the media are attacks not only on free speech but on the truth. The Trump administration continues to twist the truth despite the presence of facts that are as plain as day. It seemingly wants Americans to believe its press conference spin over their own eyes, ears, and experiences and over video footage of peaceful protestors being murdered. Journalists give citizens access to this truth, as do protestors who have been intimidated for filming DHS interactions.200 These attacks on civil society have downwind effects for protest and free speech writ large. In a society where some speech is so heavily browbeaten, some people will be wary of speaking out.

Two paths for America’s future

The United States is at a crossroads: Will it reverse course and once again strengthen its democracy or slip further toward a more autocratic and repressive form of government? One of the key determinants will be this administration’s response to political protest. Another will be how the American people respond to the actions of their government. The White House has already shot past many boundaries of the rule of law and may continue to do so, but Americans must continue to peacefully vocalize their dissent.

Possible areas of concern regarding the freedom of protest

Surveillance

The government may still deploy traditional surveillance such as that used in COINTELPRO, especially against protestors and leaders of movements with which it disagrees. The government is already using a wider array of tools to surveil citizens, including facial recognition software, the purchase of private geolocation data, license plate readers, and social media monitoring.201 The consolidation of such information, made possible by secondary data abuse,202 is extremely dangerous. Secondary data abuse has allegedly already taken place under the Department of Government Efficiency,203 and the federal government is contracting companies such as Palantir Technologies to consolidate information on individuals into a database that combines government and consumer data to track people in real time for deportation or arrest.204

Much of this surveillance does not require direct government collection, since private parties collect enormous amounts of individuals’ sensitive data through phones, apps, cars, and cameras.205 The ACLU recently found that DHS has “bought access to huge amounts of highly sensitive location data harvested from people’s cell phones that enables government tracking of our movements over time.”206 The government purchased this information from the private sector to bypass constitutional constraints.207 Though the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States (2018) that the government generally requires a warrant for sensitive location data under the Fourth Amendment,208 an ICE memo attempts to differentiate purchased location data and the location data at issue in Carpenter on a technicality.209 The former is tied to mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs), not phone numbers, but MAIDs are still identifiable.210 Such loopholes are likely to emerge as technical capacity outpaces jurisprudence. This is a betrayal of Americans’ privacy and due process rights by both their government and service providers.

Further domestic deployment of troops:

As outlined in a 2025 Pentagon memo, states may soon have National Guard troops specifically trained in riot control ready to be deployed against civilians.211 This would further disrupt civilian law enforcement. At various times, the president has also threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops in American cities,212 which would undoubtedly raise tensions. The National Guard is usually deployed to help communities, such as providing support during the pandemic and after natural disasters.213 Regularizing deployments under the guise of civil unrest or riot control would put them at odds with the very people they signed up to help. The military is not trained to police civilians, and as highlighted by the 1992 deployment of Marines in Los Angeles, differences between military and police training can prove dangerous.214

Encouraging civilian violence against protestors

A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that creates an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters.215 Just a week earlier, the bill’s sponsor posted on social media that his bill, which he nicknamed the “Thump Thump Act,” would “allow Americans to run over these Muslim Terrorists,” and “BLM, Antifa, illegal immigrants, and anyone else who intentionally blocks roads!”216

When members of the American far-right valorized and platformed Kyle Rittenhouse after he shot police reform protestors in 2020, it set a dangerous precedent.217 Though far-right militias have become slightly less active, their views have become more mainstream.218 As a result, actions that in another sociopolitical era may have been near universally admonished may now be praised or excused by those on the far right, such as the death of Renee Good.219

Restricting protest through statute

States have enacted laws that have heightened penalties for protests that affect gas and oil pipelines and critical infrastructure, added penalties for protesters at state capitols, initiated an amorphous ban on protests near residences, provided civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters if they believe they are in danger, and brought racketeering penalties for protestors.220 Similar restrictions could be enacted at the federal level. Some of these laws are benign on their face but could easily be weaponized through selective or overly broad application. There are currently bills in Congress that propose criminal penalties for protesters on interstate highways,221 protests near pipelines,222 for camping on public property in Washington, D.C.,223 and for protestors who block traffic.224 Similarly, the first Trump administration introduced a proposal in which organizers would have had to pay a fee in order to protest in front of the White House.225 After receiving more than 100,000 public comments, the proposal was dropped.226

Restricting citizenship or passport access

Trump and his allies have increasingly called for denaturalization, including asking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices to supply “100-200 denaturalization cases per month.”227 There are concerns that such a policy could be weaponized against political dissidents who engage in protest or speech opposing the administration, though historically denaturalization is rare and requires meeting a high legal bar.228 For example, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) called for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) to be denaturalized during his campaign, accusing him of concealing material support for terrorism which is grounds for denaturalization.229 The administration seemed to consider it, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying that if Rep. Ogles’ claims were true, Madani should be investigated.230 A provision was introduced this year and later pulled by Brian Mast (R-FL) that would have allowed the secretary of state to refuse to issue a passport to, or enable the secretary to revoke one from, anyone who has “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support” to a foreign terrorist organization.231 This bill would have allowed the administration to use an overreaching definition of support for such an organization or reclassify what a foreign terrorist organization is as a way to restrict passport access. Yet the administration may be making informal attempts to restrict the movement of political opponents: An observer filed a legal declaration stating that three days after an interaction with DHS where DHS agents stated her face was being scanned, her TSA Pre-Check and Global Entry were revoked.232

Conclusion

Though frightening, this path of suppression is not the only way forward. Judges across the country are robustly ruling against overly broad or unconstitutional Trump administration policies.233 If there are in fact trumped-up charges against protestors, judges could utilize their authorities sua sponte to dismiss them in the interest of justice.234 In some jurisdictions—including California, Oregon, and Washington—trial judges can dismiss criminal charges “in the interest of justice” based on the facts in front of them.235 Courts have the opportunity to act as a bulwark against injustice just as the founders intended, rather than grovel at the feet of a despot. Members of the U.S. military must uphold their oath of enlistment to “support and defend the Constitution”236 and could disobey illegal orders.237 If illegally asked to enact violence on civilians peacefully protesting, they should refuse. Individual Americans who are not judges or soldiers also have some agency in this moment. Everyday people can continue to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and utilize creative forms of nonviolent resistance.

As the current administration continues to attack the social fabric of the United States, it is the continued peaceful resistance of Americans that will turn the tide against democratic backsliding.

Congress must counter the violent, suppressive tactics being used against members of their communities. It must condemn violence against protesters, ensure laws uphold the rights and safety of protesting citizens, and create enforcement mechanisms for violations of these fundamental rights. It should protect against inappropriate surveillance of Americans, including by addressing loopholes to avoid warrant requirements. Congress must also continue to push for fundamental changes to DHS and federal law enforcement policies.238 Possible changes include the elimination or reform of qualified immunity to ensure liability via a cause of action—entitlement to seek legal remedy239—against federal agents,240 mandatory public identification of law enforcement officers, body camera requirements, and a financial mechanism for compliance with court orders, such as fines or withholding funding.241 Finally, Congress should clarify what is an unlawful order under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and make disobeying an unlawful order an affirmative duty.242

Just like voting, the attempted suppression of protest only serves to prove its importance. History shows that while fearmongering can lead to unfair attacks on protest, free speech, and other civil liberties, it does not have to win out. Look to the success of the Civil Rights Movement.243 As the current administration continues to attack the social fabric of the United States, it is the continued peaceful resistance of Americans that will turn the tide against democratic backsliding.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Gréta Bedekovics, Alice Lillydahl, Allie Preston, Mariam Rashid, Nicole Alvarez, Devon Ombres, Michael Sozan, Ben Olinsky, Dan Herman, Mona Alsaidi, Chester Hawkins, Anh Nguyen, Christian Rodruguez, and Meghan Miller for their contributions to this report.

Endnotes

  1. Library of Congress, “Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774 to 1789 — 1773 to 1774,” available at https://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congress-and-constitutional-convention- from-1774-to-1789/articles-and-essays/timeline/1773-to-1774/ (last accessed February 2026).
  2. Martin Kaste, “’No Kings’ protests draw bigger crowds across the country in second iteration,” NPR, October 19, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/10/19/nx-s1-5577004/no-kings-protests-draw-bigger- crowds-across-the-country-in-second-iteration.
  3. National Archives, “The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say?”, available at https://www.archives.gov/founding -docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say (last accessed February 2026).
  4. Kaste, “’No Kings’ protests draw bigger crowds across the country in second iteration”; Alana Wise, Chandelis Duster, and Emma Bowman, “3 takeaways from Saturday’s No Kings nationwide protests,” NPR, October 19, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/10/19/nx-s1-5579042/no-kings-protests-takeaways.
  5. Alice Lillydahl, “The Trump Administration’s Dangerous Embrace of Cancel Culture,” Center for American Progress, December 2, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations -dangerous-embrace-of-cancel-culture/.
  6. Bill Chappell and Juliana Kim, “Frictions over investigations emerge after ICE agent fatally shoots Minneapolis woman,” NPR, January 9, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/09/nx-s1-5672502/minneapolis-portland- ice-shootings.
  7. Ibid.; Ray Sanchez, “Whistles, then gunfire: How the deadly ICE shooting unfolded in Minneapolis,” CNN, January 10, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/10/us/ice-shooting-minneapolis-renee-good.
  8. Gaby Vinick and others, “A minute-by-minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti involving federal agents,” ABC News, January 26, 2026, available at https://abcnews.com/Politics/minute-minute-timeline- fatal-shooting-alex-pretti-federal/story?id=129547199.
  9. Democracy Now, “‘He Was Executed’”: Minneapolis Residents Outraged, Defiant After Immigration Agents Kill Alex Pretti,” January 26, 2026, available at https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/26/alex_pretti_shooting_minneapolis.
  10. Michael Loria, “’Beautiful light of our family’: Renee Good’s family reveals new details about morning she was killed by ICE,” USA Today, January 14, 2026, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/14/renee-good-family-reveals-new-details-about-the-morning-she-was-killed-by-ice/88183565007/; Vinick and others, “A minute-by-minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti involving federal agents.”
  11. Nandita Bose and others, “Trump’s war on the left: Inside the plan to investigate liberal groups,” Reuters, October 9, 2025, available at https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-war-left-inside-plan-investigate-liberal- groups-2025-10-09/; Erik Wemple, “Judge Blocks Government From Reviewing Seized Washington Post Devices,” The New York Times, January 21, 2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/media/ washington-post-reporter-search-first-amendment.html. 
  12. David L. Hudson Jr., “Free Speech During Wartime,” Free Speech Center, August 12, 2023, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/free-speech-during-wartime/; Heidi Kitrosser, “America’s History of Fear-Based Governance,” Lawfare, January 16, 2026, available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/america-s-history-of-fear-based-governance.
  13. Abraham Lincoln, “Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors,” The American Presidency Project, May 18, 1864, available at https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-arrest-and-imprisonment-irresponsible-newspaper-reporters-and-editors.
  14. Erick Trickey, “When America’s Most Prominent Socialist Was Jailed for Speaking Out Against World War I,” Smithsonian Magazine, June 15, 2018, available at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/.
  15. National Archives, “World War II Japanese American Incarceration: Mass Removal and Incarceration,” available at https://www.archives.gov/research/aapi/ww2/incarceration (last accessed February 2026); United States Courts, “Facts and Case Summary — Korematsu v. U.S.,” available at https://www.uscourts.gov/about- federal-courts/educational-resources/annual-observances/asian-pacific-american-heritage-month/korematsu-v-us-balancing-liberties-and-safety/facts-and-case-summary-korematsu-v-us (last accessed February 2026).
  16. Andrew Stanton, “What US Law Says About Sedition and Troops Defying Illegal Orders,” Newsweek, November 20, 2025, available at https://www.newsweek.com/what-us-law-says-sedition-troops-defying-illegal- orders-11084527.
  17. History, Art & Archives, “The Oath of Office Bill,” U.S. House of Representatives, available at https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Oath-of-Office-Bill/ (last accessed February 2026).
  18. Library of Congress, “Constitution of the United States: First Amendment,” available at https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ (last accessed February 2026).
  19. Victoria Killion, “Free Speech: When and Why Content-Based Laws Are Presumptively Unconstitutional,” Library of Congress, January 10, 2023, available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12308.
  20. Lora Strum, “What the First Amendment Really Protects,” American Civil Liberties Union, October 30, 2025, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/what-the-first-amendment-really-protects.
  21. Ibid.; Martin Gruberg, “Ku Klux Klan,” Free Speech Center, August 10, 2025, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/ku-klux-klan/.
  22. American Civil Liberties Union, “ACLU-EM Defends KKK’s Right to Free Speech,” Press release, September 7, 2012, available at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech.
  23. American Experience, “The Alien and Seditions Act,” PBS, available at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/adams-alien-and-seditions-act/ (last accessed February 2026); Legal Information Institute, “ArtI.S8.C11.2.5.2 Quasi War with France from 1798–1800 and War Powers,” Cornell Law School, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/quasi-war-with-france-from-1798-1800-and-war-powers (last accessed February 2026).
  24. Ibid.
  25. National Archives, “Alien and Sedition Acts (1798),” available at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts (last accessed February 2026).
  26. Stuart Leibiger, “The Alien and Sedition Acts,” The Bill of Rights Institute, available at https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-alien-and-sedition-acts/ (last accessed February 2026).
  27. Caryn E. Neumann, “Matthew Lyon,” Free Speech Center, January 1, 2009, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/matthew-lyon/.
  28. Douglas Bradburn, “A Clamor in the Public Mind: Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts,” The William and Mary Quarterly 65 (3) (2008): 565–600, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096814.
  29. Scott Bomboy, “The Alien Enemies Act: The One Alien and Sedition Act Still on the Books,” National Constitutional Center, March 17, 2025, available at https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-one-alien -and-sedition-act-still-on-the-books.
  30. Marianne Holdzkom, “Alien and Sedition Acts were reviled in their time, and John Adams was not sorry to see them go,” The Conversation, March 12, 2025, available at https://theconversation.com/alien-and-sedition-acts-were-reviled-in-their-time-and-john-adams-was-not-sorry-to-see-them-go-246019.
  31. Holdzkom, “Alien and Sedition Acts were reviled in their time, and John Adams was not sorry to see them go.”
  32. Ibid.; National Archives, “Thomas Jefferson to Stevens Thomson Mason, 11 October 1798,” available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-30-02-0375 (last accessed February 2026); American Experience, “The Alien and Seditions Act.”
  33. National Archives, “Thomas Jefferson to Stevens Thomson Mason, 11 October 1798.”
  34. Boston Tea Party, “10 Causes of the American Revolution,” available at https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/article/10-causes-of -the-american-revolution (last accessed March 2026).
  35. American Experience, “The Alien and Seditions Act.”
  36. Hudson Jr., “Free Speech During Wartime.”
  37. Lincoln, “Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors.”
  38. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, “A proclamation on the suspension of habeas corpus, 1862,” available at https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/ proclamation-suspension-habeas-corpus-1862 (last accessed February 2026).
  39. National Constitution Center, “Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918),” available at https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/espionage-act-of-1917-and-sedition-act-of-1918-1917-1918 (last accessed February 2026).
  40. Dave Ross, “The Sedition and Espionage Acts Were Designed to Quash Dissent During WWI,” History, February 10, 2026, available at https://www.history.com/articles/sedition-espionage-acts-woodrow-wilson-wwi.
  41. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (May 3, 1919), available at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47.
  42. National Constitution Center, “Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918),” Scott Bomboy, “The Espionage Act’s constitutional legacy,” National Constitution Center, August 17, 2023, available at https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-espionage-acts-constitutional-legacy; Danny Bird, “What was the 1918 Sedition Act?,” History Extra, January 4, 2024, available at https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/ 1918-sedition-act-what/.
  43. Ibid.
  44. Alec Thomson, “Smith Act of 1940 (1940),” Free Speech Center, July 10, 2024, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/smith-act-of-1940/; Martin Gruberg, “McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (1950),” Free Speech Center,  July 2, 2024, available at https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1950Internal SecurityAct.pdf; Frank Askin, “Chilling Effect,” Free Speech Center, June 2, 2025, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/chilling-effect/.
  45. David L. Hudson, Jr., “First Amendment freedoms developed during the Civil Rights Movement,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, September 29, 2024, available at https://www.fire.org/research-learn/ first-amendment-freedoms-developed-during-civil-rights-movement; National Museum of African American History and Culture, “#OnThisDay: Bloody Sunday,” available at https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/ onthisday-bloody-sunday (last accessed February 2026).
  46. Paul Wolf, “COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story,” September 1, 2011, available at https://cldc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/COINTELPRO.pdf.
  47. U.S. Senate, “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,” available at https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/church-committee.htm (last accessed February 2026).
  48. Renée DiResta, “Process as Punishment: An American History of Political Spectacle,” Lawfare, April 14, 2025, available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/process-as-punishment–an-american-history-of-political- spectacle.
  49. U.S. House of Representatives, “The permanent standing House Committee on Un-American Activities,” available at https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-permanent-standing-House- Committee-on-Un-American-Activities/ (last accessed February 2026).
  50. DiResta, “Process as Punishment: An American History of Political Spectacle.”
  51. Thomson, “Smith Act of 1940 (1940)”; Jesse DeLauder, “The Seattle Seven: The Smith Act Trials in Seattle (1952–1958),” Communism in Washington State Project, available at https://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/SmithAct.shtml (last accessed February 2026); Robert Jacobs, “Smith Act,” EBSCO, available at https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/smith-act (last accessed February 2026).
  52. Internal Security Act of 1950, Public Law 81–831, 81st Cong., 2nd. sess. (September 22, 1950), available at https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1950InternalSecurityAct.pdf.
  53. Harry S. Truman, “Veto of the Internal Security Bill,” September 22, 1950, available at https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-the-internal-security-bill
  54. DeLauder, “The Seattle Seven: The Smith Act Trials in Seattle (1952–1958)”; Askin, “Chilling Effect.”
  55. Internal Security Act of 1950.
  56. Ellen Schrecker, “More Than Just a Man,” PBS, May 24, 2024, available at  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/mccarthy-more-than-just-a-man/.
  57. Gruberg, “McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (1950).”
  58. Louis Fisher, “Detention of U.S. Citizens,” Congressional Research Service, April 28, 2005, available at https://www.justice.gov/file/267886/dl?inline=.
  59. Ibid.
  60. Richard Nixon, “Statement on Signing Bill Repealing the Emergency Detention Act of 1950,” The American Presidency Project, September 25, 1971, available at https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement- signing-bill-repealing-the-emergency-detention-act-1950.
  61. Ibid.
  62. Wolf, “COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story.”
  63. Virgie Hoban, “‘Discredit, disrupt, and destroy’: FBI records acquired by the Library reveal violent surveillance of Black leaders, civil rights organizations,” University of Berkeley, January 18, 2021, available at https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/fbi.
  64. Ibid.; Wolf, “COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story”; Hoban, “‘Discredit, disrupt, and destroy’: FBI records acquired by the Library reveal violent surveillance of Black leaders, civil rights organizations”; Ed Gordon and Cory Turner, “COINTELPRO and the History of Domestic Spying,” NPR, January 18, 2006, available at https://www.npr.org/2006/01/18/5161811/cointelpro-and-the-history-of-domestic-spying.
  65. Ibid.
  66. Betty Medsger, “In 1971, Muhammad Ali Helped Undermine the FBI’s Illegal Spying on Americans,” The Intercept, June 6, 2016, available at https://theintercept.com/2016/06/06/in-1971-muhammad-ali-helped- undermine-the-fbis-illegal-spying-on-americans/.
  67. Laura W. Murphy, “‘Trust Us, We’re the Government’” – ACLU Looks at Domestic Surveillance and the Need to Watch the Watchers in Times of Crisis,” American Civil Liberties Union, Press release, October 10, 2001, available at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/trust-us-were-government-aclu-looks-domestic-surveillance-and-need- watch-watchers.
  68. Hoban, “‘Discredit, disrupt, and destroy’: FBI records acquired by the Library reveal violent surveillance of Black leaders, civil rights organizations.”
  69. University of North Carolina University Libraries, “Memorandum from John Dean Titled ‘Dealing with our Political Enemies,’ August 16, 1971,” available at https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/items/show/7896 (last accessed March 2026); John J. Edwards, “What Was Richard Nixon’s ‘Enemies List’—And Who Was on It?”, History, May 28, 2025, available at https://www.history.com/articles/richard-nixon-enemies-list-who-was-on-it .
  70. Ibid.
  71. Ibid.
  72. U.S. Senate, “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.”
  73. Ibid.
  74. Ibid.
  75. Alex Abdo and Charlie Hogle, “The Public Should Have Access to the Surveillance Court’s Opinions,” Knight First Amendment Institute, April 19, 2021, available at https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-public-should-have-access-to-the-surveillance-courts-opinions.
  76. Edward C. Liu, “Origins and Impact of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Provisions That Expired on March 15, 2020,” Congressional Research Service, March 31, 2021, available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40138.
  77. Sarah Brady Siff, “Policing the Police: A Civil Rights Story,” Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, April 2016, available at https://origins.osu.edu/article/policing-police-civil-rights-story; Library of Congress, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom,” available at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/ civil-rights-act/multimedia/birmingham-protests.html (last accessed February 2026); Rachel Chason and Rebecca Tan, “For black residents who saw D.C. burn decades ago, Floyd protests feel like hope,” The Washington Post, June 16, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-protests-1968- george-floyd/2020/06/15/bc5475e6-ab28-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html.
  78. Library of Congress, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom.”
  79. Hudson, Jr., “First Amendment freedoms developed during the Civil Rights Movement.”
  80. Ibid.
  81. Ruth Ann Strickland, “Breach of Peace Laws,” Free Speech Center, March 31, 2025, available at https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/breach-of-peace-laws/; Jordan Howell, “From protests to the Supreme Court: How the Civil Rights Movement advanced First Amendment legal protections,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, January 14, 2022, available at https://www.fire.org/news/protests -supreme-court-how-civil-rights-movement-advanced-first-amendment-legal-protections.
  82. Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, “Birmingham Campaign,” Stanford, available at https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/birmingham-campaign (last accessed February 2026).
  83. HISTORY.com Editors, “Martin Luther King Jr. is jailed in Birmingham,” HISTORY, March 2, 2025, available at https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-12/martin-luther-king-jr-writes-letter-from-a-birmingham-jail; Martin Luther King Jr., “”Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963, available at https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.
  84. King Jr., “”Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”
  85. Jerry M. Lewis and Thomas R. Hensley, “The May 4 Shootings At Kent State University: The Search For Historical Accuracy,” The Ohio Council for the Social Studies Review 34 (1) (1998): 9–21, available at https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy.
  86. Ibid.
  87. Ibid.
  88. Ibid
  89. Chris McGreal, “How the Kent State massacre marked the start of America’s polarization,” The Guardian, May 4, 2020, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/04/kent-state-massacre-marked-start- of-americas-polarization.
  90. Lewis and Hensley, “The May 4 Shootings At Kent State University: The Search For Historical Accuracy.” 
  91. Ibid.
  92. Suzanne Irvin, “Suzanne Irvin, Personal Narrative,” Kent State University, February 1, 1996, available at https://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/suzanne-irvin-personal-narrative; Lorrie J. Accettola, “Lorrie J. Accettola, Personal Narrative,” Kent State University, November 13, 1999, available at https://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/lorrie-j-accettola-personal-narrative; Lewis and Hensley, “The May 4 Shootings At Kent State University: The Search For Historical Accuracy.” 
  93. William H. Scranton and others, “The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest” (Washington: The White House, 1970), available at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112001845277.
  94. McGreal, “How the Kent State massacre marked the start of America’s polarization”; Richard M. Perloff, “Four Students Were Killed in Ohio. America Was Never the Same,” The New York Times, May 4, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/kent-state-shooting-protest.html.
  95. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, “Free Speech: A Brief History,” available at https://www.fire.org/research-learn/free-speech-brief-history (last accessed February 2026).
  96. Victoria L. Killion, “Freedom of Speech: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service, September 13, 2024, available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986.
  97. Legal Information Institute, “strict scrutiny,” Cornell Law School, available at  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny (last accessed February 2026).
  98. Erwin Chemerinsky, “The levels of scrutiny are here to stay (for now at least),” SCOTUSBlog, August 14, 2025, available at https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/the-levels-of-scrutiny-are-here-to-stay-for-now-at-least/.
  99. Killion, “Freedom of Speech: An Overview.”
  100. Legal Information Institute, “Intermediate scrutiny,” Cornell Law School, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny (last accessed February 2026).
  101. Killion, “Freedom of Speech: An Overview.”
  102. Peter Charalambous and others, “Since Trump’s return to office, here’s a list of those targeted by his administration,” ABC News, February 11, 2026, available at https://abcnews.com/US/list-individuals- including-lisa-cook-targeted-trump-administration/story?id=124968309.
  103. John Hudak, “Donald Trump does not hate protests—he hates dissent,” The Brookings Institution, June 5, 2020, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/donald-trump-does-not-hate-protests-he-hates-dissent/.
  104. Justin Spike and Nicholas Riccardi, “Trump’s moves against media outlets mirror authoritarian approaches to silencing dissent,” PBS News, September 18, 2025, available at https://www.pbs .org/newshour/politics/trumps-moves-against-media-outlets-mirror-authoritarian-approaches-to-silencing-dissent; Dan Herman, Robert Benson, and Vishal Gogusetti, “The Authoritarian Playbook in Action: What Global Cases Tell Us About Trump’s 2025 Military Deployments,” Center for American Progress, August 12, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-authoritarian-playbook-in-action-what-global-cases-tell-us-about-trumps-2025-military-deployments/. 
  105. Charalambous and others, “Since Trump’s return to office, here’s a list of those targeted by his administration.”
  106. Democracy Docket, “Mapped: Trump’s Deployment of National Guard Troops,” October 20, 2025, available at https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/mapped-trumps-deployment -of-national-guard-troops/; Priscilla Alvarez and Zoe Sottile, “Trump administration plans aggressive immigration crackdown with 2,000 agents in Minnesota amid welfare fraud scandal,” CNN, January 5, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/05/us/ice-minnesota-immigration-federal-agents-somali.
  107. Anna Betts, “From ‘criminals’ to ‘garbage’, Trump is ramping up anti-immigrant language,” December 6, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/06/trump-anti-immigrant-language.
  108. Taylor Galgano, “Minneapolis family, six children tear gassed after they were caught in clash between ICE and protesters,” CNN, January 17, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/17/us/minneapolis-family -tear-gassed-ice; Alisha Ebrahimji, “A teacher who ‘made you feel like you mattered’ was killed near her school after a man fleeing ICE crashed a car into hers,” CNN, February 17, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/17/us/linda-davis-ice-savannah-ga. 
  109. Lex McMenamin and Andrew Witherspoon, “‘Very historic time’: US protests have jumped since Trump’s first term,” The Guardian, January 19, 2026, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19 /trump-protests-data.
  110. Martin Kaste, “ICE raids grow tense as protesters confront immigration agents,” NPR, June 6, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/06/06/nx-s1-5425524/ice-raids-grow-tense-as-protesters-confront-immigration-agents.
  111. Ibid.; “What to know about the Los Angeles immigration protests over ICE operations” CBS News, June 12, 2025, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-los-angeles-immigration-protests-trump/.
  112. Los Angeles Police Department Media Relations Division, @LAPDPIO, June 7, 2025, 10:26 pm, ET., X available at https://x.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931538326600995262?s=20; Neera Tanden and others, “Trump’s Deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles Is a Dangerous Escalation That Will Inflame Tensions,” Center for American Progress, June 9, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-deployment -of-national-guard-to-los-angeles-is-a-dangerous-escalation-that-will-inflame-tensions/; Jaimie Ding, “Pentagon withdraws 700 Marines from Los Angeles,” PBS News, July 21, 2025, available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/pentagon-withdraws-700-marines-from-los-angeles.
  113. Democracy Docket, “Mapped: Trump’s Deployment of National Guard Troops.”
  114. Chris Hippensteel and Pooja Salhotra, “How Courts Have Ruled in Challenges to Trump’s National Guard Deployments,” The New York Times, December 11, 2025, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/us/federal-courts-national-guard-trump.html.
  115. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., v. Illinois, et al., 607 U. S. ____ (December 23, 2025) available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_b07d.pdf.
  116. Aaron Pellish, “Trump ends National Guard deployment in 3 cities after Supreme Court loss,” POLITICO, December 31, 2025, available at https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/31/donald-trump-national-guard- deployment-00708714.
  117. Danya Gainor and Priscilla Alvarez, “2,000 federal agents are being deployed to Minneapolis in an escalated immigration push. Here’s what we know,” CNN, January 6, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/06/us/minneapolis-ice-crackdown-what-we-know.
  118. Ibid.; Rebecca Santana, Associated Press and Michael Balsamo, Associated Press, “2,000 federal agents sent to Minneapolis area to carry out ‘largest immigration operation ever,’ ICE says,” PBS News, January 6, 2026, available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-sent-to-minneapolis-area-to-carry-out- largest-immigration-operation-ever-ice-says.
  119. Ibid.
  120. Kanishka Singh, “Minnesota governor proposes to tackle fraud after Trump allegations led to immigration crackdown,” Reuters, February 26, 2026, available at https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/minnesota-governor-proposes-tackle-fraud-after-trump-allegations-led-immigration-2026-02-26/.
  121. Lauren Aratani, “Democratic senators call on education department to stop ICE raids by schools,” The Guardian, October 24, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/24/democratic-senators-ice-raids-schools; Micaela McConnell and Steven Hubbard, “Learning in the Shadows: How Immigration Enforcement Harms Students and Schools,” American Immigration Council, August 26, 2025, available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/immigration-enforcement-harms-students-schools/.
  122. Inal and others, “Minneapolis ICE shooting: A minute-by-minute timeline of how Renee Nicole Good died,” ABC News, January 9, 2026, available at https://abcnews.com/US/minneapolis-ice-shooting-minute-minute-timeline-renee-nicole/story?id=129021809.
  123. Amanda Musa, “Mother of 3 who loved to sing and write poetry shot and killed by ICE in Minneapolis,” CNN, January 9, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/renee-nicole-good-minneapolis-ice-shooting-hnk.
  124. Inal and others, “Minneapolis ICE shooting: A minute-by-minute timeline of how Renee Nicole Good died.”
  125. Ibid.; Julie Bosman, “Private Autopsy Shows Renee Good Was Shot at Least 3 Times, Lawyers Say,” The New York Times, January 21, 2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/renee-good- private-autopsy.html.
  126. Cait Kelley, “ICE agents are trained in CPR. They didn’t use it on Renee Macklin Good,” Minnesota Public Radio News, January 17, 2026, available at https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/17/ice-agents-are-trained -in-cpr-they-didnt-use-it-on-renee-macklin-good.
  127. Ibid.
  128. Jacob Phillips, “Who was Alex Pretti, the intensive care nurse shot dead in Minneapolis?”, BBC, January 28, 2026, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62r4g590wqo; Vinick and others, “A minute-by-minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti involving federal agents.”
  129. Ibid.
  130. Ibid.
  131. Ibid.
  132. Ibid.; and Erin Hale, “Trump officials, MAGA under fire over baseless claims about Pretti killing,” Al Jazeera, January 26, 2026, available at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/26/trump-administration-maga-allies- spread-misinformation-on-pretti-killing.
  133. Vinick and others, “A minute-by-minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti involving federal agents.”
  134. Juliana Kim and Alana Wise, “Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act (again). What is it?”, NPR, January 15, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/15/nx-s1-5678612/minneapolis-insurrection -act-trump-threats. 
  135. Hayley Durudogan, Sydney Bryant, and Devon Ombres, “Domestic Deployment of the Military: The Past, Present, and Potential Future,” Center for American Progress, February 4, 2025, available at https://www.american progress.org/article/domestic-deployment-of-the-military-the-past-present-and-potential-future/.
  136. Ibid.
  137. Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart, “Pentagon readies 1,500 troops for potential Minnesota deployment, US officials say,” Reuters, January 19, 2026, available at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-readies-1500-soldiers -possibly-deploy-minnesota-washington-post-reports-2026-01-18/; Steven Beynon, “Military stands down troops ordered to prep to deploy to Minneapolis,” ABC News, February 3, 2026, available at https://abcnews.com/Politics/military-stands-troops-ordered-prep-deploy-minneapolis/story?id=129797524.
  138. Durudogan, Bryant, and Ombres, “Domestic Deployment of the Military: The Past, Present, and Potential Future.”
  139. Mark Nevitt, “Deploying Soldiers on American Soil: Operational Risks & Considerations,” Lawfare, October 3, 2024, available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-american-soil–operational-risks—considerations.
  140. Ibid; James Delk, “MOUT: A Domestic Case Study—The 1992 Los Angeles Riots,” in Russell W. Glenn, ed. The City’s Many Faces: Proceedings of the RAND Arroyo-MCWL-J8 UWG Urban Operations Conference (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2000).
  141. National Guard, “What is the National Guard’s mission – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ),” available at https://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the- Guard/Army-National-Guard/FAQ/ (last accessed February 2026).
  142. Durudogan, Bryant, and Ombres, “Domestic Deployment of the Military: The Past, Present, and Potential Future.”
  143. Aaron Glantz, “Revealed: Pentagon orders states’ national guards to form ‘quick reaction forces’ for ‘crowd control’,” The Guardian, October 29, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/ oct/29/pentagon-memo-quick-reaction-forces.
  144. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Mission,” available at https://www.dhs.gov/mission (last accessed February 2026).
  145. Anna Betts, “Kristi Noem doubles down on claim ICE agent killed woman in self-defense,” The Guardian, January 8, 2026, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/09/kristi-noem-dhs-press-conference -ice; Avery Lotz, “Noem defiant, vows more ICE agents as Dems allege coverup,” Axios, January 11, 2026, available at https://www.axios.com/2026/01/11/noem-minneapolis-shooting-renee-good-jonathan-ross.
  146. Michelle L. Price, “Vance calls killing of Minneapolis woman by an ICE officer ‘a tragedy of her own making,’” The Associated Press, January 8, 2026, available at https://apnews.com/article/vance-minnesota-immigration- enforcement-06b23b428edcc8498362be4ac656f201.
  147. Inal and others, “Minneapolis ICE shooting: A minute-by-minute timeline of how Renee Nicole Good died”; Devon Lum, Robin Stein, and Ainara Tiefenthäler, “Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis,” The New York Times, January 8, 2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/ 100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html; Jonah Kaplan, Madeleine May, and Daniel Ruetenik, “Retired ICE agent reviews deadly Minneapolis shooting video frame-by-frame, questions tactics used,” CBS News,

    January 8, 2026, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/ice-shooting-minneapolis-retired-agent- video-analysis/. 

  148. Sydney Bishop, “Officials say Alex Pretti ‘brandished’ a weapon, but have offered no evidence. Why that term matters,” CNN, January 25, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/25/us/shooting-alex-pretti-gun- minneapolis.
  149. Hale, “Trump officials, MAGA under fire over baseless claims about Pretti killing.”
  150. Bishop, “Officials say Alex Pretti ‘brandished’ a weapon, but have offered no evidence. Why that term matters”; Jennifer Ludden and Liz Baker, “Videos and eyewitnesses refute federal account of Minneapolis shooting,” NPR, January 25, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/25/nx-s1-5687875/minneapolis-shooting-minnesota -ice-alex-pretti-dhs-investigation.
  151. Chandelis Duster and Sergio Martínez-Beltrán, “Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good’s death,” NPR, January 11, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/10/nx-s1-5673229/ice-protests -minneapolis-portland-renee-good; Michael Sainato, “Economic blackout day planned in Minnesota to protest ICE surge,” The Guardian, January 20, 2026, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/20/ ice-immigrarion-minnesota-economic-protest; Ana Faguy, “’This is horrifying’ – Minneapolis residents reel from second deadly shooting,” BBC, January 25, 2026, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg50vv1ezko.
  152. Terry Gross, “Are ICE agents in Minneapolis breaking the law?”, NPR, January 21, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5683915/are-ice-agents-in-minneapolis-breaking-the-law; Jasmine Garsd and Sarah McCammon, “Escalating tensions in Minnesota,” NPR, January 17, 2026, available at https://www.nprillinois.org/2026-01-17/escalating-tensions-in-minnesota.
  153. Graham Hurley, “Blood. Pain. Disorientation. Here’s what protesters say ‘less-lethal’ weapons feel like,” CNN, January 23, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/20/us/protestors-tear-gas-pepper-balls.
  154. Taylor Galgano, “Minneapolis family, six children tear gassed after they were caught in clash between ICE and protesters,” CNN, January 17, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/17/us/minneapolis-family -tear-gassed-ice.
  155. Ibid.
  156. Ibid.
  157. Rebecca Boone, “A timeline of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota,” PBS News, February 13, 2026, available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-timeline -of-trumps-immigration-crackdown-in-minnesota.
  158. Jason Rantala, “Federal agents still active in Twin Cities suburbs, observers say,” CBS News, February 18, 2026, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/federal-agents-twin-cities-suburbs/.
  159. Betts, “Kristi Noem doubles down on claim ICE agent killed woman in self-defense”; Price, “Vance calls killing of Minneapolis woman by an ICE officer ‘a tragedy of her own making’”; Lum, Stein, and Tiefenthäler, “Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis”; Hale, “Trump officials, MAGA under fire over baseless claims about Pretti killing.”
  160. Ibid.
  161. Patty O’Keefe, “ICE arrested me without cause. What I saw will haunt me forever. | Opinion,” USAToday, January 27, 2026, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2026/01/26/ice-detained-us-citizens -minnesota-arrests/88304880007/.
  162. Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, “‘I Erase Your Voice’: ICE Agents Threaten People After Alex Pretti,” The New Republic, January 27, 2026, available at https://newrepublic.com/post/205776/ice-agents-threaten-protesters- alex-pretti.
  163. Dell Cameron, “ICE Agent’s ‘Dragging’ Case May Help Expose Evidence in Renee Good Shooting,” Wired, February 6, 2026, available at https://www.wired.com/story/jonathan-ross-renee-good-roberto-carlos- munoz-guatemala/.
  164. Sharon Zhang, “DOJ Push to Investigate Renee Good’s Widow Sparks Mass Resignation,” Truthout, January 14, 2026, available at https://truthout.org/articles/doj-push-to-investigate-renee-goods-widow-sparks-mass-resignation/.
  165. Holmes Lybrand, “Hopes that the FBI would share evidence in Alex Pretti’s killing with state investigators have shattered,” CNN, February 16, 2026, available at https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/16/politics/alex-pretti-fbi-evidence- state-investigators; Ernesto Londoño, “Prosecutors Began Investigating Renee Good’s Killing. Washington Told Them to Stop,” The New York Times, February 7, 2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/07 /us/renee-good-investigation-minnesota-trump.html. 
  166. Christian Martinez, Reuters, “Minnesota sues DOJ and DHS over withheld evidence in fatal shootings,” USA Today, March 25, 2026, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/03/25/minnesota-lawsuit-evidence-renee-good-alex-pretti-shooting-deaths/89311717007/.
  167. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and others, “Trump Shuts Down 3 Watchdog Agencies Overseeing Immigration Crackdown,” The New York Times, March 21, 2025, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21 /us/politics/trump-civil-rights-homeland-security-deportations.html.
  168. American Experience, “The Alien and Seditions Act.”
  169. Michelle Stoddart and others, “Trump directs generals to defend US from ‘war from within’,” ABC News, September 30, 2025, available at https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-directs-generals-defend-us-war/ story?id=126087035.
  170. Hina Shamsi, “How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists,” American Civil Liberties Union, October 15, 2025, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7 -seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists.
  171. Linda Qiu, “Trump’s Inaccurate Claims About the L.A. Immigration Protests,” The New York Times, June 13, 2025, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/us/politics/trump-la-immigration-protests-fact-check.html.
  172. Shamsi, “How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists.”
  173. Donald J. Trump, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” The White House, September 25, 2025, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering -domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/; Shamsi, “How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists.”
  174. Rachel Levinson-Waldman, “Trump’s Version of “Domestic Terrorism” vs. the First Amendment,” Brennan Center for Justice, February 13, 2026, available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trumps-version-domestic-terrorism-vs-first-amendment; Shamsi, “How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists.”
  175. Odette Yousef, “Trump has designated ‘antifa’ a terrorist group. Here are the questions that raises,” NPR, September 22, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/09/19/nx-s1-5545764/trump-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization.
  176. Shamsi, “How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use “Domestic Terrorism” to Target Nonprofits and Activists.”
  177. Ibid.; Yousef, “Trump has designated ‘antifa’ a terrorist group. Here are the questions that raises.”
  178. Ibid.
  179. Bose and others, “Trump’s war on the left: Inside the plan to investigate liberal groups.”
  180. Ibid.
  181. Rachel Rossi, “Trump’s secret war against vital nonprofits,” Democracy Docket, January 6, 2026, available at https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/trumps-secret-war-against-vital-nonprofits/.
  182. Isaiah Thompson, “Senate GOP Ramps Up Attacks on Left-Wing Nonprofits,” Nonprofit Quarterly, November 4, 2025, available at https://nonprofitquarterly.org/senate-gop-ramps-up-attacks-on-left-wing-nonprofits/.
  183. Jack Jenkins, “Faith groups say House Republicans’ probe into immigration work violates their religious freedom,” National Catholic Reporter, June 26, 2025, available at https://www.ncronline.org/news/ faith-groups-say-house-republicans-probe-immigration-work-violates-their-religious-freedom.
  184. Donald J. Trump, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” The White House, March 6, 2025, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/; Donald J. Trump, “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts,” The White House, February 25, 2025, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances- and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/; Donald J. Trump, “ADDRESSING RISKS FROM PAUL WEISS,” The White House, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from- paul-weiss/. 
  185. Alice Lillydahl, “The Dangers of Obeying: 4 Risks for Organizations Bowing to the Trump Administration,” Center for American Progress, July 2, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the- dangers-of-obeying-4-risks-for-organizations-bowing-to-the-trump-administration/.
  186. Trump, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” Trump, “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts”; Trump, “ADDRESSING RISKS FROM PAUL WEISS.”
  187. Ryan Lucas, “Trump attacks on law firms begin to chill pro bono work on causes he doesn’t like,” NPR,

    April 13, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59497/trump-law-firms-pro-bono. 

  188. David Bauder, “AP and Trump administration argue access case before federal appeals court; no ruling yet,” The Associated Press, November 24, 2025, available at https://apnews.com/article/ap-trump-media-access- pool-gulf-mexico-america-9a6667aae9743032c51c42c5e4f7dedc.
  189. Andrea Shalal, “White House restricts access for journalists to press secretary’s office,” Reuters, November 5, 2025, available at https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/white-house-issues-new-rule-restricting -access-journalists-2025-10-31/.
  190. David Bauder, “Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to new reporting rules,” The Associated Press, October 15, 2025, available at https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-hegseth -trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12.
  191. Mark Kennedy, “ABC ends Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension and his show will return Tuesday,” The Associated Press, September 22, 2025, available at https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-supporters-94b79634a1 9b2c4ce70a2b4195ef1175.
  192. Ibid.
  193. Ryan J. Reilly and Corky Siemaszko, “FBI can’t examine devices it took from Washington Post reporter for now, judge rules,” NBC News, January 21, 2026, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-cannot- examine-devices-took-washington-post-reporter-judge-rules-rcna255286.
  194. Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker, “FBI searches a Washington Post reporter’s home as part of a classified documents investigation,” The Associated Press, January 14, 2026, available at https://apnews.com/article/fbi-washington-post-search-warrant-classified-documents-373bd02f4f9ea446dd71c1203da467f3.
  195. Ibid.; Wemple, “Judge Blocks Government From Reviewing Seized Washington Post Devices.”
  196. Ibid.; Legal Information Institute, “prior restraint,” Cornell Law Center, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ prior_restraint (last accessed March 2026).
  197. Jacob Wendler, “Federal judge rejects government’s request to search Washington Post reporter’s devices,” Politico, February 24, 2026, available at https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/24/federal-judge-rejects-governments-request-to-search-washington-post-reporters-devices-00797070.
  198. Chandelis Duster, “Don Lemon and Georgia Fort vow to continue reporting following arrests tied to anti-ICE protest,” NPR, January 31, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/01/31/nx-s1-5695230/don-lemon-georgia -fort-release.
  199. Max Nesterak, “Journalist Georgia Fort pleads not guilty to felony charges stemming from church protest,” Minnesota Reformer, February 17, 2026, available at https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/02/17/journalist -georgia-fort-pleads-not-guilty-to-felony-charges-stemming-from-church-protest/.
  200. Jude Joffe-Block, “A new lawsuit alleges DHS illegally tracked and intimidated observers,” NPR, February 23, 2026, available at https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/nx-s1-5722988/dhs-lawsuit-biometrics-domestic-terrorism.
  201. Dave Maass and Rindala Alajaji, “How Cops Are Using Flock Safety’s ALPR Network to Surveil Protesters and Activists,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 20, 2025, available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11 /how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-protesters-and-activists; Dhruv Mehrotra, “We Hunted Hidden Police Signals at the DNC,” Wired, September 5, 2024, available at https://www.wired.com/story/dnc -hidden-signal-hunt/; Darrell M. West, “How technology is altering citizen protests,” The Brookings Institution, September 30, 2025, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-technology-is-altering-citizen-protests/. 
  202. Nicole Alvarez, “The Trump Administration Is Using Americans’ Sensitive Data To Build a Digital Watchtower,” Center for American Progress, August 25, 2025, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/ article/the-trump-administration-is-using-americans-sensitive-data-to-build-a-digital-watchtower/.
  203. Geoff Brumfiel, “Whistleblower says Trump officials copied millions of Social Security numbers,” NPR, August 26, 2025, available at https://www.npr.org/2025/08/26/nx-s1-5517977/social-security-doge-privacy.
  204. Tristan Bove, “Palantir/ICE connections draw fire as questions raised about tool tracking Medicaid data to find people to arrest” Fortune, January 26, 2026, available at https://fortune.com/2026/01/26/ice-allegedly-uses-palantir -tool-tracking-medicaid-data/; Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik, “How ICE Already Knows Who Minneapolis Protesters,” The New York Times, January 31,  2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/ technology/tech-ice-facial-recognition-palantir.html.
  205. Urbano Reviglio,”The untamed and discreet role of data brokers in surveillance capitalism: a transnational and interdisciplinary overview,” Internet Policy Review 11 (3) (2022): 1–27 available at https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.3.1670%0A.
  206. Anika Venkatesh and Lauren Yu, “DHS is Circumventing Constitution by Buying Data It Would Normally Need a Warrant to Access,” American Civil Liberties Union, January 12, 2026, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/ privacy-technology/dhs-is-circumventing-constitution-by-buying-data-it-would-normally-need-a-warrant-to-access. 
  207. Ibid.
  208. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (June 22, 2018), available at https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402.
  209. Venkatesh and Yu, “DHS is Circumventing Constitution by Buying Data It Would Normally Need a Warrant to Access.”
  210. Ibid.
  211. Aaron Glantz, “Revealed: Pentagon orders states’ national guards to form ‘quick reaction forces’ for ‘crowd control’” The Guardian, October 29, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/ oct/29/pentagon-memo-quick-reaction-forces.
  212. Genesis Magpayo, “What is the Insurrection Act? Here’s what Trump has said about using it,” PBS News, January 15, 2026, available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-the-insurrection-act- heres-what-trump-has-said-about-using-it.
  213. Chaitra M. Hardison and Daniel B. Ginsberg, “Addressing Stressors for National Guard Personnel” (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024), available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2052-1.html.
  214. Durudogan, Bryant, and Ombres, “Domestic Deployment of the Military: The Past, Present, and Potential Future.”
  215. ROAD Act or 2025, H.R.4846, 119th Cong. 1st sess. (August 1, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill /119th-congress/house-bill/4846. 
  216. Randy Fine, @RepFine, July 27, 2025, 2:47 pm ET, X, available at https://x.com/RepFine/status/1949542 224225603935?s=20;  Randy Fine, @RepFine, July 27, 2025, 4:56 pm ET, X, available at https://x.com/RepFine/ status/1949574595419275399?s=20.
  217. David Faris, “The alarming message behind the GOP’s embrace of Kyle Rittenhouse,” The Week, November 23, 2021, available at https://www.yahoo.com/news/alarming-message-behind-gops-embrace-162712092.html.
  218. The Associates Press, “Hate groups in the U.S. decline but their influence grows, report shows,” NBC News, May 23, 2025, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hate-groups-us-decline-influence-grows-report-shows -rcna208693.
  219. Parker Molloy, “The Campaign to Destroy Renee Nicole Good,” Wired, January 16, 2026, available at https://www.wired.com/story/the-campaign-to-destroy-renee-good/.
  220. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, “US Protest Law Tracker,” available at https://www.icnl.org/ usprotestlawtracker/ (last accessed February 2026).
  221. Safe Passage on Interstates Act of 2025, H.R. 1057, 119th Cong. 1st sess. (February 6, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1057.
  222. Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy Act, S.1017, 119th Cong. 1st sess. (March 13, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1017.
  223. A bill to impose criminal penalties for camping on public property in the District of Columbia, S.2517, 119th Cong., 1st sess. (July 29, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2517
  224. Safe and Open Streets Act, H.R. 4015, 119th Cong. 1st sess. (June 13, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4015.
  225. Luke O’Neil, “Trump administration plans crackdown on protests outside White House,” The Guardian, October 12, 2018, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/trump -administration-plans-crackdown-on-protests-outside-white-house.  
  226. Arthur Spitzer, “Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall,” American Civil Liberties Union, October 28, 2019, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/trump-administration-stifle-protests-white-house-free-speech-first-amendment.
  227. Zolan Kanno-Youngs, “Denaturalization Is Part of Trump’s Crackdown on Immigrants,” The New York Times, January 8, 2026, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-somalis-denaturalization.html.
  228. Faiza Patel and Margy O’Herron, “Stripping Naturalized Americans of Citizenship Faces High Legal Hurdles,” Brennan Center for Justice, October 24, 2025, available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/stripping-naturalized-americans-citizenship-faces-high-legal-hurdles.
  229. Lawrence Hurley, “Calls to strip Zohran Mamdani’s citizenship spark alarm about Trump weaponizing denaturalization,” NBC News, July 23, 2025, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/calls-strip-zohran-mamdanis-citizenship-trump-denaturalization-power-rcna216653.
  230. Ibid.
  231. Joseph Gedeon, “GOP lawmaker pulls measure to allow Marco Rubio to revoke US passports,” The Guardian, September 16, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/brian-mast-marco-rubio- revoke-passport-measure; Matt Sledge, “New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio “Thought Police” Power to Revoke U.S. Passports,” The Intercept, September 13, 2025, available at https://theintercept.com/2025/09/13/marco-rubio- revoke-us-passports-terrorism/.
  232. Jon Brodkin, “ICE observer says her Global Entry was revoked after agent scanned her face,” Ars Technica, January 30, 2026, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/ice-protester-says-her-global-entry -was-revoked-after-agent-scanned-her-face/.
  233. Peter Stone, “Rogue president’: growing number of US judges push back against Trump,” The Guardian, October 21, 2025, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/21/judges-rebuking-trump.
  234. Valena E. Beety, “Pretrial Dismissal in the Interest of Justice: A Response to COVID-19 and Protest Arrests,” The University of Chicago Law Review Online, November 9, 2020, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3727058.
  235. Ibid.
  236. Office of Law Revision Counsel United States Code, “10 USC 502: Enlistment oath: who may administer,” available at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section502 &num=0&edition=prelim (last accessed February 2026).
  237. Chris Boccia, “Explainer: Can military members refuse orders?”, ABC News, November 25, 2025, available at https://abcnews.com/Politics/explainer-military-members-refuse-orders/story?id=127865412.
  238. Dan Herman and others, “The Trump Administration’s ICE and CBP Have Become a Threat to Americans: Congress Must Ensure That DHS Follows the Law and Adopts Commonsense Reforms,”  Center for American Progress, January 28, 2026, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-ice- and-cbp-have-become-a-threat-to-americans-congress-must-ensure-that-dhs-follows-the-law-and-adopts-commonsense-reforms/.
  239. Legal Information Institute, “cause of action,” Cornell Law Center, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action (last accessed March 2026.)
  240. Ed Yohnka and others, “Ending Qualified Immunity Once and For All is the Next Step in Holding Police Accountable,” American Civil Liberties Union, March 23, 2021, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/c riminal-law-reform/ending-qualified-immunity-once-and-for-all-is-the-next-step-in-holding-police-accountable; Aaron L. Nielson and Christopher J. Walker, “Qualified Immunity’s 51 Imperfect Solutions,” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 17 (1) (2022): 321–346 available at https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/ djclpp/vol17/iss1/10.
  241. Herman and others, “The Trump Administration’s ICE and CBP Have Become a Threat to Americans: Congress Must Ensure That DHS Follows the Law and Adopts Commonsense Reforms.”
  242. Dan Maurer, “Congress Must Define ‘Unlawful Order’ Under Military Law,” Lawfare, January 8, 2026, available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/congress-must-define–unlawful-order–under-military-law.
  243. “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom;” “The Civil Rights Movement,” Library of Congress, available at https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/post-war-united-states-1945-1968/civil-rights-movement/.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Author

Sydney Bryant

Policy Analyst, Structural Reform and Governance

Team

Democracy

The Democracy team is advancing an agenda to win structural reforms that strengthen the U.S. system and give everyone an equal voice in the democratic process.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.