Equating protest with terrorism: A narrative against dissent

Amid crackdowns on the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the UN Human Rights Committee commented that governments cannot prohibit peaceful protest based on generalized references to public order or safety risks, affirming protesters' right to conceal faces and free from harassment. This comment followed statements by Donald Trump linking the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) to domestic terrorism. Subsequent events involved framing individuals, such as Alex Pretti, as domestic terrorists by officials like Stephen Miller, who referenced claims about Pretti stopping law enforcement. Protests against ICE and mass deportations were framed as terrorism by officials since 2025. This narrative is echoed globally, with examples including Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and the UK, where protesters or activist groups were labeled terrorists under anti-terrorism laws. The context includes increased immigration enforcement operations involving aggressive tactics in Minnesota and Oregon between 2025 and 2026. Furthermore, actions taken by the Trump administration, such as executive orders designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, further cement this rhetoric against protest movements.

The narrative surrounding protest is being strategically deployed to reframe dissent, shifting the focus from policy disagreement or confrontation to criminal acts of terrorism. This pattern involves connecting specific, often violent, interactions between protesters and state agents with established terrorism tropes—such as using weapons or obstructing law enforcement—to delegitimize the protest movement entirely. The mechanism operates by establishing a moral panic where legitimate demands for civil rights or immigration policy are recast as existential threats to national security. This has been observed across multiple geopolitical contexts, showing that the framing of dissent is less about verifiable kinetic actions and more about applying existing legal frameworks (anti-terrorism laws) to political resistance. The appearance of this narrative in diverse locations demonstrates a replicable strategy for delegitimizing opposition by invoking fear and established state security concerns. The specific links between immigration enforcement actions, use of force, and the labeling of political organizing as terrorism suggest a coordinated effort to create an environment where suppression is framed not as law enforcement response but as counter-terrorism necessity. What does this reveal about the relationship between perceived threats and institutional power? What are the tangible costs borne by those whose activities fall outside state-sanctioned definitions of security? How can accountability be established when the very language used to describe protest transforms dissent into criminality?