The Authoritarian Playbook: From "Rioters" to Military Deployment in 48 Hours

See Action Steps at the end of this article.

I just wrote a piece breaking down the Los Angeles protests—debunking the administration’s claims of criminality and showing how protest is legal, protected, and necessary under the Constitution. I haven’t even posted it yet. This is moving really fast, so I’m putting this out now to show how the playbook works—and what we can do to stop it. You can read that companion piece here: The LA “Riots” Are Legal. Here is a toolkit for protest safety planning—especially useful for small towns. Toolkit link is public and open to adapt.

If you're short on time, skip to the end—Breaking the Pattern: What We Can Do—for concrete actions you can take now.

---

We just witnessed the authoritarian playbook in real time: label peaceful protesters as "rioters," then use that false narrative to justify military deployment against American citizens.

In less than 48 hours, we went from ICE raids in Los Angeles to the federal government announcing it will deploy 2,000 soldiers and federalize California's National Guard without Governor Newsom's permission. This is coordinated. It follows a deliberate strategy.

This article outlines exactly what’s happening—and what we can do about it. If you’re looking for concrete actions, skip to the section called “Breaking the Pattern: What We Can Do.”

The Setup: Constitutional Rights vs. Government Overreach

On Friday, June 6, federal agents launched coordinated raids across Los Angeles workplaces, targeting businesses known to employ immigrant workers. The operations raised immediate constitutional red flags: agents reportedly failed to display proper warrants, conducted mass arrests without due process, and used military-grade weapons against people exercising their First Amendment rights.

When word spread, hundreds of Los Angeles residents did exactly what the Constitution protects: they peacefully assembled to petition their government for redress of grievances. They gathered at targeted workplaces and later at the federal building, demanding accountability for potentially unlawful government actions.

This is democracy functioning as designed. The First Amendment protects criticism of government actions, especially when those actions appear to violate constitutional boundaries.

The Rhetoric: Manufacturing Criminals

But the administration needed a different story. ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons immediately labeled the demonstrators as "rioters" who "attacked federal ICE and law enforcement officers." Department of Homeland Security officials accused local leaders of enabling "chaos and lawlessness."

This language was chosen deliberately. By characterizing peaceful protesters as violent criminals, the administration accomplished two crucial goals: it deflected attention from their own potential constitutional violations, and it created the narrative justification for what came next.

The vast majority of people in Los Angeles were exercising clearly protected constitutional rights. Some blocked building entrances—civil disobedience that has a long and honored tradition in American democracy. A small number engaged in violence, which police addressed appropriately. But the administration painted everyone with the same "rioter" brush.

The Payoff: Military Response to Constitutional Expression

Now we see why that rhetoric mattered. Governor Newsom announced that the federal government plans to deploy 2,000 soldiers and federalize California's National Guard without state permission—a move experts say ignores the rule that only states control their Guard—unless there’s war or disaster.

This is the authoritarian playbook, step by step:

1. Violate constitutional rights (potentially unlawful ICE raids)

2. Provoke resistance (people naturally protest constitutional violations)

3. Reframe the resistance (peaceful protesters become "rioters")

4. Escalate the response (deploy military force against "rioters")

Each step provides justification for the next, creating a cycle that transforms legitimate protest into pretexts for increasingly authoritarian measures.

Why This Matters Beyond California

The immigration enforcement angle is just cover. The real goal is normalizing military responses to peaceful dissent. Once the federal government establishes that it can deploy soldiers against Americans exercising their constitutional rights, that precedent applies to future protests of any kind.

• Climate activists blocking pipelines? Send in the troops—they're "eco-terrorists."

• Anti-war demonstrators at military bases? Military response—they're "threats to national security."

• Workers striking for better conditions? Federal intervention—they're "disrupting commerce."

The specific issue becomes irrelevant once you've established that peaceful protesters can be labeled "rioters" and military force becomes an acceptable government response.

The Historical Pattern

This has happend before. During the Civil Rights Movement, officials routinely characterized peaceful protesters as "outside agitators" and "threats to public order" to justify violent government responses. Bull Connor's dogs and fire hoses were defended as necessary responses to "lawlessness."

During labor organizing in the early 20th century, striking workers were labeled "anarchists" and "Bolsheviks" to justify military intervention. The Ludlow Massacre, the Bonus Army crackdown, and the killings at Kent State all followed the same pattern—peaceful dissent reframed as violent threat to justify force.

Each time, officials claimed they were defending "law and order" while systematically violating the constitutional rights they swore to protect.

The Constitutional Reality Check

Let's examine what actually threatens law and order here:

Constitutional: Peaceful assembly, petitioning government, protesting potentially unlawful government actions

Potentially Unconstitutional: Conducting searches without proper warrants, mass arrests without due process, using military force against peaceful protesters, federalizing state National Guard units to suppress dissent

The administration has inverted reality. The protesters defended constitutional principles while the government potentially violated them. Now they want to use military force to suppress the people who dared to point this out.

What Comes Next

This is just the beginning. Once you normalize military responses to constitutional expression, the definition of what requires military response keeps expanding. Today it's immigration protests in Los Angeles. Tomorrow it could be any group of Americans exercising their First Amendment rights about any issue the administration doesn't like.

Governor Newsom correctly stated that this deployment will "only escalate tensions." The escalation serves their purpose. Authoritarian movements thrive on the chaos they create. They violate rights, provoke resistance, then use that resistance to justify even greater violations.

The cycle continues until people either accept that their constitutional rights no longer exist, or they decide to break it.

---

Breaking the Pattern: What We Can Do

Now that we recognize the playbook, we need concrete actions to stop it before it becomes the new normal.

Immediate Actions: Rejecting the False Narrative

Challenge the Language Everywhere You See It

When officials characterize peaceful protesters as "rioters," immediately ask what constitutional violations they're trying to distract from. Don't let the conversation stay focused on the protesters' tactics—pivot to the government actions that prompted the protest.

On social media, in conversations, in letters to editors: "Why are we talking about protesters when we should be asking whether ICE followed proper warrant procedures?" Force the conversation back to the actual constitutional violations.

Document Everything in Real Time

The administration relies on people forgetting the sequence of events. Create and share timelines that show:

• Government action (potentially unlawful raids)

• Constitutional response (peaceful protest)

• Government reframing (protesters become "rioters")

• Escalated response (military deployment)

Make the pattern visible. Screenshot official statements. Save news articles. Build an undeniable record of how the playbook unfolds.

Refuse to Accept Military Normalization

Every time officials deploy military force against American citizens, explicitly state that this undermines rather than restores law and order. The federal government is declaring that constitutional rights are now optional, subject to revocation whenever they become politically inconvenient.

Call your representatives. Write letters. Attend town halls. Make it clear that military responses to peaceful dissent are unacceptable regardless of the stated justification.

Strategic Responses: Protecting Constitutional Rights

Know Your Rights—And Assert Them

The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly, free speech, and petitioning government for redress of grievances. When government officials violate these rights, exercising them becomes both a constitutional duty and a form of resistance.

But know the boundaries: peaceful protest is protected; violence is not. Civil disobedience has consequences, but those consequences should be legal and proportionate, not military.

Support Legal Challenges Immediately

Constitutional violations require legal responses. Support organizations filing lawsuits against:

• Improper warrant procedures during raids

• Excessive force against peaceful protesters

• Unauthorized federalization of National Guard units

• Military deployment against constitutional expression

These cases establish precedents. Winning them helps prevent the next escalation.

Build Coalitions Beyond Single Issues

The immigration enforcement angle is just cover. The real target is your right to dissent about anything. Climate activists, labor organizers, anti-war protesters, civil rights advocates—everyone has a stake in stopping this playbook.

Build alliances now, before your issue becomes the target. The administration is counting on people thinking "this doesn't affect me" until it's too late.

Long-term Resistance: Institutional Protection

Demand Accountability from Local Officials

Governors, mayors, sheriffs, and police chiefs have choices about how they respond to federal overreach. Governor Newsom correctly refused to comply with federal demands. Other officials must follow his lead.

Make it clear to local officials that cooperating with military deployment against peaceful protesters is politically unacceptable. They need to know that enabling authoritarianism will cost them elections.

Strengthen State and Local Protections

Push for state and local laws that:

• Require proper warrant procedures for federal raids

• Protect protesters' rights to peaceful assembly

• Prevent local cooperation with military deployment against civilians

• Create oversight mechanisms for federal law enforcement activities

• Constitutional rights need institutional protection at every level of government.

Prepare for the Next Cycle

This won't be the last time they use this playbook. The pattern will repeat with different issues, different locations, different pretexts. But the underlying strategy remains the same.

Prepare now: Know your rights. Identify potential government overreach early. Challenge false narratives immediately. Support legal resistance. Build coalitions. Protect local institutions.

Why This Matters Right Now

We're at a crucial moment. The administration is testing whether Americans will accept military responses to constitutional expression. If we normalize this in Los Angeles, they'll use it everywhere.

But if we refuse to accept the framing, document the pattern, challenge the violations, and protect constitutional rights through every available channel, we can break the cycle.

The people of Los Angeles were fulfilling their civic duty when they protested potentially unlawful ICE raids. The fact that their government responded by sending in soldiers reveals everything about who really threatens the Constitution.

This is the test. Will we accept that our constitutional rights now depend on government approval? Or will we insist that the Constitution means what it says, even when—especially when—that's inconvenient for those in power?

The answer we give determines whether democracy survives this moment intact.

---

Don’t accept the framing. Break the pattern. Protect the Constitution.
Your rights don’t disappear because officials call you names. Your duty to defend them doesn’t end because they send soldiers. The Constitution doesn’t become optional because they say it does.
The pattern only works if we let it. Don’t let it.

---