Donald Trump just floated the idea that he would even invoke the Insurrection Act to do so. That outdated legal relic The Insurrection Act of 1807 is an obscure law that allows the president to militarily occupy American cities. This law gives the state new tools to act against protests before they happen. It furthers the military’s ability to preemptively deploy in urban areas where demonstrations are planned. The implications of such a move would be flouting civil liberties and the freedom to peacefully protest.
As we outlined this week, the backdrop to Trump’s comments has been a recent surge of protests across the U.S.—particularly focused on controversial immigration raids. Unconfirmed reports shared with us suggest National Guard troops have already been deployed to Los Angeles. They have further purportedly sought to intimidate protestors who have actively opposed these raids, using excessive, aggressive tactics. From June 6-8, law enforcement was responsible for at least 27 verified assaults against journalists covering the protests. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) covered these shocking violations extensively. These events highlight the tense dynamic between policing and civil disobedience in today’s social and political context.
Trump’s suggestion to use military force against U.S. citizens was widely condemned as authoritarian overreach. Analysts have warned that moves like these would only increase the increasing hostility toward the right to protest in America. Critics say this is part of a pernicious pattern in which the feds value control more than civil rights.
In the UK, a similar chilling of free speech and right to protest has taken root. An outspoken opponent, JD Vance, made his dissatisfaction known at February’s planning encounter with Keir Starmer. He claimed that the UK is facing an “alarming crisis” around free speech. Indeed, some pundits quickly branded Vance a hypocrite. They claim he is only concerned about the rights of certain constituents while failing to address the global picture.
The recent cases of William Plastow and Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh exemplify the fragility of protest in Britain. Today, Plastow is looking at 21 months in prison. It was a key factor in his arrest for activism against an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol ahead of his trial. Even his own mother called the treatment “outrageous,” a sentiment that is resonating with a public increasingly frustrated by acts of injustice by the legal system.
“Thanks to this authoritarian legislation, police can define almost any demonstration as ‘seriously disruptive’ and impose restrictions on it,” – Amnesty International UK
In that unrelated incident, Ó hAnnaidh is charged. He reportedly waved a flag supporting Hezbollah while attending a concert in London. Local Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap have since denounced the charge as “political policing” intended to intimidate dissent against Israel’s assault on Gaza. This situation further illustrates how laws can be weaponized against individuals expressing their political views.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole picture is the context, where laws regulating protest in both countries are being recognized as outdated and overly broad. Even in Britain, critics say these laws have gone too far and have given police too much power. They can detain people for violating their interpretation of inappropriate speech on the internet. The impact of these types of legal frameworks can have a chilling effect on lawful protest, silencing free expression.
While Vance has criticized censorship at various international forums, including the Munich Security Conference, his focus on specific cases raises questions about his commitment to free speech for all individuals. As tensions mount over the right to protest and freedom of expression, both the U.S. and UK find themselves grappling with complex challenges.