From Protest to Insurgency: The Left's Embrace of Political Violence

It is a strange quirk of American political life that the party which trembles at the sight of a red baseball cap now blinks indifferently at a Molotov cocktail. Since President Trump’s re-election, the United States has witnessed a dramatic surge in political violence against federal law enforcement officers. While the corporate press obsesses over pronouns and microaggressions, ICE agents are being ambushed with long guns in Alvarado, shot at in McAllen, and firebombed at Los Angeles. The perpetrators are not rogue lunatics. They are the inevitable consequence of a sustained campaign of dehumanization, rhetorical incitement, and ideological indulgence by elected Democrats and their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.

One might object: but isn’t protest part of democratic expression? Certainly. The right to peaceably assemble is a cornerstone of any constitutional republic. But what we are witnessing is neither peaceable nor democratic. It is not protest, it is insurgency. When masked assailants in tactical gear use fireworks to lure ICE agents from a detention center, only to open fire on them, we are not observing civic participation. We are observing war by other means.

How did we arrive here? The answer begins, predictably, with language. In politics, words are not mere air; they are matches. And Democrats have been lighting them with reckless abandon. Consider Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who in June of this year publicly compared ICE officers to the neo-Nazi hate group NSC-131, declaring that they, like Nazis, “routinely wear masks.” One struggles to imagine a more direct invitation to vigilantism. What, after all, is the moral response to Nazism if not resistance by any means necessary?

The rhetorical noose tightens further when Democratic leaders such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vow to identify ICE agents who seek anonymity. “No matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes,” he thundered, “every single one of them will be identified.” This is not oversight. It is not transparency. It is targeted doxxing with an official seal. It is an invitation to harassment, to assault, and increasingly, to murder.

Of course, the left prefers euphemism. They do not say violence, they say direct action. They do not say insurrection, they say resistance. But semantics offer no shield against consequence. The Department of Homeland Security reports a 690 percent increase in assaults against ICE officers in the past year. In raw numbers, 10 assaults occurred between January and June of 2024. Seventy-nine were recorded between January and July of 2025. One DHS official admitted the real number is likely far higher. That is not statistical noise. That is escalation.

Some will object that these acts of violence are the work of a radical fringe. Perhaps. But if so, it is a fringe emboldened, not isolated, by the statements of mainstream Democrats. In Portland, nightly attacks on ICE facilities have been occurring since Trump’s reelection. These are not spontaneous gatherings of disaffected youths. They are organized, equipped, and increasingly militarized. Likewise in Los Angeles, where ICE vehicles have been vandalized, facilities breached, and agents harassed. The line between protest and paramilitary action grows thinner by the day.

Recent events in Texas illustrate just how thin that line has become. On July 4th, the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado was attacked by a group of ten armed individuals wearing tactical gear. The assault was premeditated: fireworks were used to lure officers outside before the ambush began. A local police officer was shot in the neck. Ten have been charged with attempted murder. Just three days later, in McAllen, Border Patrol agents were fired upon by an assailant in body armor. A federal agent, a staffer, and a police officer were injured before the attacker was neutralized.

The left will say these are isolated incidents. But one must ask: how many such “isolated incidents” constitute a pattern? And more pressingly, what moral responsibility belongs to the politicians whose words have normalized such actions? Consider Rep. Jasmine Crockett declaring to conservative lawmakers, “We are gonna be on your asses... this ain’t democracy.” Or Representative LaMonica McIver shrieking from the House floor, “We are at war.” Are these metaphors? Perhaps. But metaphors have consequences.

History offers an unambiguous warning. During the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre famously insisted that “terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, and inflexible justice.” The guillotine followed not long after. Once the language of war enters domestic politics, it rarely stays rhetorical.

Beyond rhetoric, Democratic lawmakers have taken tangible steps that suggest not mere disagreement with ICE, but open hostility. In several jurisdictions, Democratic officials have attempted to physically block ICE officers from conducting lawful arrests in courthouses. In others, they have threatened to remove ICE presence from public buildings. This is not civil disobedience, it is obstruction of justice by government decree. It signals to activists that resistance is not only acceptable, but officially sanctioned.

Nor is ICE the only target. Elon Musk’s brief service as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was met with a campaign of sustained harassment. Tesla stores were vandalized, customers assaulted, charging stations sabotaged. The goal was clear: punish Musk for his role in supporting President Trump and dismantling wasteful government programs. The campaign succeeded. Musk stepped down on May 28th after serving the statutory limit. One cannot help but note the message received by other potential reformers: cooperate with this administration and you will be hunted.

A pattern emerges. Harass ICE agents, and you are valorized. Attack Border Patrol, and you are rationalized. Sabotage the work of public servants, and you are canonized. The progressive catechism has been rewritten: violence is wrong, unless it targets the right people.

President Trump has responded with characteristic clarity. He has executed a sweeping legislative package, totaling 350 billion dollars, aimed at restoring law and order. It includes 46 billion for border wall expansion, 100,000 new migrant detention beds, and 10,000 new ICE agents, each with a 10,000 dollar signing bonus. A separate 10 billion dollar fund will aid states in conducting local enforcement efforts. The administration’s goal is unambiguous: deport one million illegal aliens per year. It is a goal pursued not out of spite, but sovereignty. A nation that cannot enforce its laws is not a nation, it is an NGO with nukes.

Still, enforcement alone will not suffice. As long as Democratic politicians continue to traffic in inflammatory metaphors and indulge revolutionary posturing, the risk of violence will remain. Leaders must choose: will they champion lawful dissent or continue to wink at sedition?

One might ask, cynically, whether Democrats even want to stop the violence. After all, chaos creates narrative opportunities. Each federal raid begets a new viral video, each arrest a fresh martyr. The party of Jan. 6 hysteria now finds itself eerily quiet as masked men in tactical gear shoot at law enforcement officers. This is not hypocrisy. It is hierarchy. To the progressive mind, violence is not intrinsically evil. Its morality is determined by its target.

There is a temptation, understandable but dangerous, to respond in kind. To escalate rhetoric, to match incitement with incitement. But conservatives must resist it. The republic must be preserved not just in outcome, but in method. We do not defend law and order by mirroring the behavior of its enemies.

Nevertheless, we must speak plainly. What we are witnessing is not a protest movement. It is a campaign of intimidation and insurgency, encouraged by powerful voices who ought to know better. The time for euphemism is over.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.