Issue Brief

In contrast to demonstrations in public spaces, protests around or outside of individual homes carry additional symbolic meaning, potential implicit threat, and, in some cases, legal restrictions. While threats and incitement to violence are not protected by the First Amendment, the line between protected peaceful protest at a home and unprotected threatening activity is by nature thinner, making it essential to frame any analysis in more specific details of intention and tactics. To examine the specifics of these current trends, Princeton Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) drew on publicly available data compiled by the US Crisis Monitor as well as other open source reporting to provide specific descriptive and actionable insight on self-styled demonstrations that occurred outside of homes, as well as related threats or violence.

Following the high profile role of unlawful paramilitary and “organized” armed groups in the events of January 6, much public attention and research has rightly turned to examining specific named, unlawful paramilitary groups. However, the majority of people arrested in connection with the Capitol attack were not affiliated with militia organizations. This brief looks at 416 instances of armed actors and incidents involving guns at protests, where the armed actors were not reported to be affiliated with a named paramilitary or militia organization.

As the first anniversary of the January 6 attacks approaches, national attention has turned to conflicting commemorations of the day itself. A brief period of bipartisan calls for accountability in 2021 ultimately gave way to revisionism, and in some cases outright conspiracy theories, including from some Republican lawmakers looking to maintain favor with former President Trump. One of the most concerning narratives includes framing arrested rioters as “political prisoners” by either denying documented actions or claiming cases are politically motivated. Few if any uses of the “political prisoner” narrative have been linked to wider calls to improve treatment for all prisoners or other criminal justice reform, suggesting attention on prison conditions is being used primarily to amplify divisive narratives and fear — rather than as an opening to engage on a topic with potential to promote bipartisan cooperation. Though currently limited in total number, the migration of these narratives from online discussion to offline demonstrations and activity merit specific attention. BDI reviewed two event-based datasets — The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC) — that monitor offline demonstration and certain political violence, to capture any publically reported events related to “January 6 Political Prisoners” or “Justice for Ashli Babbitt.”

On May 2, 2022, a leaked draft of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson revealed the likelihood the decision would overturn the 1973 precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which had generally legalized abortion. The leaked draft of Dobbs v. Jackson catalyzed immediate protests, with political mobilization continuing after the official release of the decision on June 24, 2022. The overturn of Roe v. Wade signals a major victory for anti-abortion rights (i.e. pro-life) activists, catapulting abortion and broader family planning access into the national conversation amidst the 2022 midterm elections. This Issue Brief examines emerging trends since the May 2nd Dobbs v. Jackson draft decision leaked, mainly focusing on offline mobilization. The brief contextualizes this activity within historical violence related to abortion and reproductive rights. It concludes with observations on potential activity moving forward into the 2022 election cycle.

While overall mobilization in Macomb County has declined since the spike following the murder of George Floyd, 2020 saw notable instances of contention in the county including at least 2 demonstrations with armed or paramilitary actors and several instances of police intervention. At least one other Shelby Township Trustee, John Vermeulen, has a history of problematic behavior, including posting perceived racist Facebook posts and posting in support of far-right figures who have promoted election fraud narratives and called for violence. Additionally, the Macomb County GOP Chair Mark Forton has continued to push and show support for election fraud narratives since the charges were announced. Multiple county and state political and party officials issued inflammatory response statements, largely focused on characterizing the charges as an “abuse of power” aimed at “prosecuting political dissidents. While these statements have been shared across online election-denier networks, we have not seen any explicit calls for mobilization to date.

Students at colleges and universities across the United States have established protest encampments over an array of issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, prompting a wide range of responses from school officials, law enforcement, counter-protesters, and local communities. This Issue Brief analyzes the latest data on the campus protests to map key trends in demonstration activity and responses to the encampments as of May 12, with a specific focus on incidents of physical violence and destructive activity, such as assaults, clashes, substantial property damage, and use of force by police.1 The Brief also reviews ongoing dialogue and de-escalation efforts to manage tensions among campus communities, as well as the protest movement’s trajectory going into the summer.

Drop boxes are a secure and accessible means for voters to drop off ballots instead of voting in person or by mail. Yet since 2020, political contention over drop boxes has been on the rise due to a combination of factors, including increased use of the drop box voting process amid the pandemic, false fraud narratives around the presidential election, and varied jurisdictional frameworks. Concerns over drop boxes spiked during the 2022 midterm elections, with candidates and media outlets flagging the threat of “armed vigilantes staking out drop box locations.” But did online discourse transfer to offline activity? And, if so, how prevalent was this activity? Using BDI’s new Drop Box Monitoring Dataset, this Issue Brief provides an assessment of in-person, offline mobilization at drop box sites through analysis of known, reported activity nationwide, alongside case studies of two states that saw a high concentration of incidents in 2022: Arizona and Pennsylvania. It finds that only limited offline monitoring activity was reported at drop box locations during the 2022 midterms, as well as during off-year elections in 2023. The analysis exposes a gap between online rhetoric and offline action and provides new insights into approaches that can help prepare communities for contentious activity around the 2024 election.

Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders to restrict immigration and facilitate his plan to carry out “mass deportations.” These orders have included changes to previous guidance that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from conducting raids in “sensitive areas,” such as schools and churches. In response, communities across the country have mobilized in support of immigrant rights and local safety initiatives. These demonstrations and community actions have aimed to push back on dehumanizing rhetoric and misinformation, advocate for immigrant protections, and express opposition to policies that may violate domestic and international law.

After the deadly attack in Minnesota, local officials tell BDI that they are experiencing a high level of fear and emotional strain, and that the burdens of public exposure are increasingly affecting their personal lives. Safety concerns are playing a significant part in decisions about remaining in office or seeking higher elected positions, particularly for women and younger officials. To push back, officials continue to call for short-term mitigation support, like improved security at public meetings and personal data protections, as well as long-term efforts to counter the normalization of hostility and hold perpetrators accountable.