The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recently called on local law enforcement to classify a wide range of protest activities as violent tactics. Among these activities are seemingly innocuous actions such as livestreaming police encounters and skateboarding. This shift reinterprets everyday behaviors as potential indications of violent intent, suggesting a new approach to policing protests.
According to threat bulletins from DHS tied to last month’s “No Kings” protests, escalations in immigration enforcement could lead to increased public unrest. The agency anticipates a rise in anti-government sentiment, particularly regarding immigration issues, which could result in confrontations near federal sites. This expectation is based on the agency’s assessment of heightened media attention and public backlash against federal policing methods.
The bulletins warn law enforcement of potential attacks involving unconventional weapons, such as paint-filled fire extinguishers and smoke grenades, while simultaneously suggesting that nonviolent behavior—like wearing masks or using cameras—could be precursors to violence. Protesters using bicycles or skateboards are described as potential scouts scouting for weapons, and livestreaming is equated with doxxing, a tactic seen as threatening to police.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about this new guidance. Vera Eidelman from the ACLU argues that the government should not treat constitutionally protected activities, such as documenting police actions, as threats. She highlights the dangers of mislabeling harmless actions like skateboarding as violent, warning that it could lead to unnecessary police aggression against people exercising their First Amendment rights.
The emphasis on framing various protest activities as violent tactics is indicative of a broader trend in U.S. law enforcement post-9/11, where perceived intent often outweighs actual conduct. Traditional strategies of de-escalation and communication have increasingly been replaced with preemptive policing measures, where mere participation in protests can lead to increased surveillance and law enforcement scrutiny.
As DHS shares intelligence on protest movements, the approach relies heavily on open-source data and ideologically driven assessments rather than concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Law enforcement agencies utilize this information to justify aggressive interventions based on presumed intentions rather than confirmed threats. The dissemination of threat bulletins can shape public perception and influence law enforcement behavior, often amplifying fears surrounding protests.
DHS’s approach not only influences police tactics during demonstrations but also raises significant civil rights concerns, as the conflation of basic civic actions with violence risks excessive responses against peaceful protesters. The recent intelligence shared by DHS exemplifies a growing trend towards viewing dissent as a potential threat, reinforcing an environment of heightened caution and preemptive measures surrounding public protests.
