Inside Trump’s Controversial Protest Defense Tactics

Trump’s handling of protests demonstrates a stark contrast between his domestic and international stances on dissent. During the "No Kings" protest on June 14, 2025, in Los Angeles, California, sheriff deputies deployed less-than-lethal munitions and tear gas in response to federal immigration raids. At the same time, Trump publicly encouraged Iranian protesters to continue their demonstrations, stating, "Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY."

This selective approach highlights a troubling pattern: rights are conditional depending on political alignment. Domestic protests are framed as threats to law and order, while foreign demonstrations are celebrated as acts of courage. During racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Trump encouraged law enforcement to "dominate" protesters, signaling that peaceful civic action at home could be met with force.

Aggressive Policing and the Impact on Civic Freedoms Federal law enforcement in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago has employed tear gas, projectiles, and other aggressive tactics, even against journalists and legal observers. Such actions create an environment of fear that discourages peaceful assembly and undermines the right to dissent. Furthermore, directives targeting activist groups have conflated protest with criminality, raising serious concerns about free speech and due process.

Beyond direct suppression , civil society organizations supporting immigrants, racial justice, reproductive rights, and civil liberties have faced public vilification, threats to tax status, and administrative sanctions. Investigations into non-partisan organizations like the Open Society Foundations demonstrate a broader campaign against domestic advocacy efforts.

International Implications of Selective Advocacy Trump’s praise for foreign protests, such as those in Iran, reveals a transactional approach to human rights. This double standard undermines U.S. credibility abroad and provides authoritarian regimes with justification for suppressing dissent at home. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cited U.S. police violence during the 2013 Gezi Park protests to defend his own crackdowns, while Chinese media highlighted the U.S. response to 2020 protests to justify actions in Hong Kong.

Institutionalizing this selective approach normalizes repression domestically while wielding human rights advocacy abroad as a political tool. For international activists, such inconsistencies make the U.S. an unreliable ally in promoting global protest rights.

How to Leverage These Insights Monitor government responses to domestic and international dissent to identify double standards.

Support organizations that document excessive policing and defend free speech.

Educate activists about the risks of transactional support for protests and the importance of rights-based advocacy.

Advocate for consistent application of human rights principles across domestic and international contexts.

Key Takeaways & Next Steps Trump’s approach to protest demonstrates that selective enforcement of rights erodes democracy. Policymakers, civil society, and activists must ensure that civic engagement is recognized as a fundamental right, not a conditional privilege. Monitoring law enforcement practices, supporting independent oversight, and holding authorities accountable are critical for preserving freedoms both at home and abroad. Activists must remain vigilant against policies that conflate dissent with threats to security and continue to advance universal protections for peaceful assembly.