Don't miss out on On Wren's Mind in our Substack, where Wreners share their unique perspectives on important criminal justice topics. Explore these insights for a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
For those of us keeping score at home of President Trump’s shifting rationales for war this past weekend, one of his more striking claims is that bombs were dropped in Iran to protect the right to protest. Trump—who infamously mused about shooting American protestors during his first term—has not exactly shied away this time around from aggressively, if not forcefully, repressing dissent in his own country.
And the Trump administration’s unrelenting attacks on dissent have only escalated in scale and tenor over the past thirteen months. This administration is weaponizing the criminal and civil legal systems in novel ways to silence those engaging in old-fashioned organizing and First Amendment activity—and castigating large swaths of people as “domestic terrorists” to widen the net of who and what can be punished. At the core of this project is mass surveillance—aided by Big Tech, which stands to profit tremendously from these dangerous attacks by providing the tools necessary to spy on American citizens.
What we are seeing at the federal level is mirrored in the states. In Florida, for example, legislators are considering a new law that gives a gubernatorial appointee the ability to unilaterally label nearly any opposing organization a “domestic terrorist,” a label that could strip organizations of their non-profit tax status and government funding while also exposing their affiliates to potential criminal prosecutions. Florida is likely taking cues from Texas, where the governor recently labeled CAIR a foreign terrorist organization, which unfortunately may foretell our dark future: states across the country are beginning to wield domestic terrorism laws to quash protests and activism. As is the case at the federal level, mass surveillance—in Florida, Texas, and beyond—is at the heart of that story.
In this issue of Democracy Under Attack, we look at the new ways that governments are trying to suppress dissent, and the profiteers who are making their oppression possible.
Dissent on Trial in Texas
Dangerous Precedent: Mass Culpability
All eyes are on a federal trial unfolding in Prairieland, Texas, that will determine the fate of nine people who have been charged in connection to an ICE protest. Moving forward, this trial risks setting a terrifying precedent for how future protest cases are prosecuted.
The protest in question started as a “noise demonstration,” but turned violent when someone shot a police officer (fortunately, no one died). Only one of the accused, Benjamin Song, is alleged to have actually fired shots, but the government is weaponizing a powerful counterterrorism statute to hold many others accountable for the shooting, including people who were not even present at the protest and another person who simply possessed anti-fascist literature.
According to the government, the protestors are all part of Antifa and are therefore responsible for all of the actions of everyone that night–a mass culpability argument that has increasingly gained traction as a tool to crush social movements (most recently in civil lawsuits against Black Lives Mass organizers and in an attempted RICO prosecution of Cop City protestors). If this approach gains further momentum, the prosecution sends a chilling message: if you have political beliefs that the government does not like and you dare to protest or even loosely associate with a protest, you might suddenly be held criminally liable for others’ actions if things go awry.
The government does not even need to secure victory in this case to prove its point. Non-violent protestors in this case have been languishing in jail since July. Some people charged have pleaded guilty, which is common in cases where people are facing extensive prison time.
These Prosecutions Are Not Just Happening in the South
Intensified Prosecutions
According to L.A. Times reporters, the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles has filed over 100 cases against protestors charged with assaulting and impeding the actions of immigration agents. Until last week, they lost all those cases they brought to trial. We’re seeing this trend throughout the country: a barrage of protest prosecutions that frequently end up falling apart.
That does not mean, however, that these prosecutions aren’t having a massive chilling effect. Even when the cases are weak, people have to endure arrests and jail; they are forced to find and pay for lawyers; and they must live with the fear of a conviction for months on end. The price for protests is still high–which is the point.
And there is always the possibility that even with a flimsy case, the government will win. Just last week, a jury convicted two women of stalking an ICE agent after they followed him to what they believed would be an immigration enforcement operation and called on their Instagram followers to show up and protest. It turned out he was headed home. The women will now appeal.
Meanwhile, in Florida….
Labeling Dissent as Domestic Terrorism
The Florida House just passed two draconian bills that punish dissent and give a few officials sweeping, unchecked power over anyone who opposes them; while another bill, HB 945, pushed by Cellebrite lobbyists and currently flying through the House, would essentially establish Florida’s own CIA to target those who have “views” and “opinions” that the government believes are adverse to the interests of the state or the United States.
HB 1471 allows the Chief of Domestic Security, a political appointee, to label organizations as “domestic terrorists” if the Chief decides that a member has engaged in behavior “dangerous to human life”--a criteria broad enough to include blocking traffic, filming police misconduct, or even yelling at ICE or CBP Agents as they abduct human beings. Only the Governor and his cabinet need to approve the designation and, thanks to HB 1473, the public would be completely shut out of that secret designation process.
Once an organization is labeled a “domestic terrorist,” it could lose its non-profit status and federal funding and its members could be subject to serious threats. People could lose their legal status in the United States simply by being members of a “domestic terrorist” organization.
And those implications are just on the civil side. There is no stopping prosecutors from utilizing the terrifying “domestic terrorist” designation as the anchor for a criminal conspiracy prosecution, even though what they are alleging could be that the ACLU organized a protest, or a church put together a mutual aid organization.
State and Federal Governments Can Engage in Escalated Threats, Investigations, and Prosecutions Thanks to Big Tech
Watchlists: “We have a nice little database…and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi finally admitted that the federal government has created a secret watchlist, the ramifications of which remain unclear. The list allows the government to quietly designate people and organizations as “domestic terrorists” if it decides that they espouse “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, antifascism, and radical gender ideologies,” or a “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views.”
Surveillance
That database is fed by a powerful arsenal of tools that the government relies on to spy on those who dissent. Palantir, Clearview AI, Mobility Fortify, and others have been awarded millions of dollars to develop a surveillance interface that not only bolsters DHS’s mass deportation plot, but also targets American citizens. With just one scan during a street encounter, officers can access a person’s home address, phone numbers, tax identification number, and license plate and use that information to refer protestors to prosecutors.
Handing Over Private Data
The NYTimes has reported that DHS and the DOJ are frequently evading judicial oversight by sending administrative subpoenas to Meta and Google that demand information about the accounts of people who are critical of the government, often without proof of illegality or wrongdoing. This has included someone who was merely organizing for mutual aid. Meanwhile, Meta often refuses to comply with defense subpoenas, even when they are signed by a judge.
Luckily, There Is Some Good News
The Lancet issued a strong critique of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s first year as Secretary of Health and Human Services, labeling it a “year of failure.” The editorial condemns his actions, including employee dismissals and undermining established scientific guidelines, amidst rising concerns over public health.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made a significant ruling in the case Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, challenging overly broad police search warrants and reinforcing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches of personal devices and digital data. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes, “It is rare for appellate courts to call into question any search warrants. It’s even rarer for them to deny qualified immunity defenses. The Tenth Circuit’s decision should be celebrated as a big win for protesters and anyone concerned about police immunity for violating people’s constitutional rights.”
“We have friends everywhere”: At an MLS game in Minneapolis, fans unfurled a huge tifo with the logo of the Rebellion from the hit-show Andor, apparently moved by the show’s reminder that rebellions are built on hope.