I already wrote about the GOP’s bloodthirsty desire to use the military on Americans. They manufactured a nonsense “crisis” by over-aggressively sending in ICE agents to grab people off the streets, leading to protests, which were focused on provoking protestors into violence, which would then be used to justify an even more violent crackdown.

Given that, it’s crucial to get actual reports from what’s actually happening on the street, rather than relying on questionable media framing by those not actually there. Laura Jedeed, at The Nation, reports from the actual protest itself that the only “riot” happening is by the cops looking to provoke a response to justify their initial volley of violent activity:

I spent Sunday from about 4 pm until very late inside the LA protests, and this is what I saw. Yes, cars were set on fire in one part of the sprawling, multi-block protest. Yes, fireworks were launched at cops—a handful, sporadically. But it should be noted that these were launched long after these police officers began unloading flash bang after flash bang, rubber bullet after rubber bullet, into a largely peaceful crowd. (Flash bangs are stun grenades that produce a flash of light and deafening noise.)

The idea that cops were just reacting to protester provocation is absurd. Cops occupied intersections in an attempt to split the protest, then occasionally charged the protest lines that surrounded them to force the crowds to temporarily retreat. These assaults seemed unrelated to protester action or lack thereof. At one point, while the cops were unloading round after round of blue-tipped rubber bullets into a crowd hunkered down behind a barricade, a different group of protesters approached from the side and threw a firework into the center of the police line. The cops turned their fire against the group, which ran off, but did not pursue them. Thirty seconds later, the cops were back to shooting at the barricade.

We have heard a lot about the assault of police officers during these protests. Why haven’t we seen it? Where’s the body cam footage showing protesters injuring cops, striking them, putting them out of commission? I saw a police officer struck by a water bottle thrown by protesters in a barrage launched around 7:30 pm after those protesters spent hours absorbing “less lethal” rounds and being deafened by flash bangs, but that’s about it. Meanwhile, we’ve got drone footage of a mounted officer using his horse to trample a protester, who lies prone on the ground, surrounded by mounted police. We’ve got cops beating protesters with truncheons, cops deploying tear gas, cops bringing box after box of ammunition to the line so they could fire again and again and again into crowds of protesters exercising tremendous restraint throughout the day.

This pattern—police initiating violence, protesters responding minimally, police escalating further—isn’t accidental. It’s that fascist playbook all over again: manufacture the violence to justify the violence you initiated.

We should all be calling it out for what it is.

Tragically, most of the media are failing at that and are instead accepting the narrative the administration wants. Jadeed details how badly the media is failing:

“Pockets of LA descending into chaos,” an ABC news anchor declared in an extremely typical news segment on Monday. “Protesters setting cars on fire, dumping bikes and scooters on police cruisers on the highway. Law enforcement firing hundreds of flash bangs and non-lethal projectiles and making dozens of arrests.” In the background, footage of these atrocities: cops beating protesters with truncheons, tear gas, a car on fire. A shirtless masked man waving a Mexican flag atop a wrecked Waymo, cops firing into a crowd at close range. The only active violence in these clips comes from the cops, but no matter. That fire is what you should be worried about: the fire and nothing else.

While some organizations reported from inside the protest itself, most did not: They set up camp behind the police line, or reported using drone footage, or simply asked the cops what to say. “Dozens of people were arrested Sunday and accused of attempted murder, arson and other crimes during a day of violence and protests in Los Angeles,” NBC Los Angeles declared in an article based exclusively on LAPD sources. It’s an understandable decision on their part. Just look at Lauren Tomasi, a reporter for the Australian Channel Nine news service who got “caught in the crossfire” and struck with a rubber bullet while reporting—by which I mean an LA police officer aimed directly at the reporter from close range and shot her. She reports being “sore, but OK,” which is more than photographer Nick Stern can say: The day before, a “less lethal” round punctured his leg and required emergency surgery. As of Tuesday morning, the LA Press Club documented over 30 injuries to members of the press. Easier and safer to parrot police talking points than face down their guns.

The systematic targeting of journalists isn’t incidental—it’s designed to control the narrative by ensuring that most coverage comes from behind police lines, where reporters can only see what law enforcement wants them to see.

One of the most egregious examples of this that I saw was the NY Times posting an image of a shopping cart on fire and claiming that “the police are firing back”—as if a burning shopping cart constitutes such a direct threat to heavily armored officers hundreds of yards away that it justifies “returning” fire into crowds of people.

The Trump regime is manufacturing a fake riot to justify their own actions. They’re pushing for violence to justify more violence. The violence and attacks we’re seeing are almost entirely initiated by the cops, and yet are being falsely framed as protesters “rioting” despite the lack of evidence to support it.

The media’s willingness to amplify this manufactured narrative isn’t just journalistic malpractice—it’s complicity in the very authoritarianism they should be exposing.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening. If it’s a riot, it’s the police who are rioting. If there’s an “invasion” of LA, it’s the US military that is invading. Kudos to Jedeed and The Nation for calling this out while so much of the media is rewriting history in real time.

As the driver pointed out—as protesters around me would later point out—the president’s not wrong: LA is under invasion. But the invading force isn’t the immigrants who live and work here. It’s ICE attempting to abduct children from elementary schools by claiming their parents authorized the pick-up, or rolling up to Home Depot to abduct people doing the most American thing imaginable: pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, hiring themselves out as day laborers to make a better life for themselves and their families. It’s the Marines deployed against their fellow citizens by an administration that’s fantasized about quelling First Amendment activity by force for half a decade now. These are the un-American hordes descending on Los Angeles.

Trump can call these protests invasions all he wants: I know what I saw. As the sun began to set, riot cops from the LA county sheriff’s department showed up on trucks, fully kitted out with shields and gas masks. The rapidly shrinking protest saw the writing on the wall and, rather than confront these militarized enforcers, turned and walked away, into the night and into the city. For hours they marched, blasting mariachi music and old-school West Coast rap and chanting their simple, reasonable demand: “No ICE in LA!”

As the protesters marched, they chanted something else: “Whose streets? Our streets!” It wasn’t a declaration of war or a challenge to others who might lay claim to the city, but a statement of obvious fact. As these several hundred protesters marched the wrong way up a one-way street, completely stopping traffic, an overwhelming number of drivers honked and cheered. They rolled down their windows to fist-bump the protesters and take pictures and shout their approval.

From the very beginning of this regime, we’ve been saying over and over and over again that the most important thing is telling the truth. As Mike Brock keeps saying, “two plus two equals four” and you can’t let them get away with telling you otherwise.

This isn’t just about getting the facts straight for their own sake. When media coverage systematically misrepresents who is initiating violence and who is responding to it, it provides cover for further escalation. Each cycle of distorted coverage makes the next round of police violence more politically palatable.

The people are not rioting. The police are. Immigrants are not invading. The US military is.

We have to be clear on what ground truth is, and that requires that the media stop accepting propagandist framing.

“President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he plans to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency after this year’s hurricane season, offering the clearest timeline yet for his administration’s long-term plans to dismantle the disaster relief agency and shift responsibility for response and recovery onto states,” CNN reports.

Said Trump: “We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level. A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.”

We’re just supposed to assume that the masked person brandishing a gun and ordering us to get into an unmarked vehicle is a federal agent, rather than a criminal. We’re just supposed to buy into this new, hideous version of immigration enforcement that utilizes military gear, long guns, and a complete lack of identification as normal stuff Americans should just put up with.

But various gods forbid we actually expect public servants to be a bit more forthcoming about their public duties. Using apparently completely made-up stats about “increases” in “attacks” on ICE agents, ICE’s enablers justify the complete erasure of public accountability — something that starts with informing people you are actually a law enforcement officer by… you know… behaving like a law enforcement officer. Your agency should be named prominently. Your face — unless you’re engaging in a truly covert operation — should be visible.

Raiding homes and businesses to round up anyone looking kind of Hispanic in broad daylight isn’t a covert operation. Do your job right or get the fuck out of the business. If you’re in public, you assume the risks. But lots of people in or orbiting the Trump administration seem to think the government should be allowed to spend tax dollars without feeling obligated in any way to the people paying their salaries.

Enter someone who definitely hasn’t earned his publicly-funded paycheck, Senator Lindsey Graham.

If you can’t read/see the embed, it’s a Xtwit from Lindsey Graham, which says he wants to make it illegal for anyone to name/shame ICE agents.

I will soon introduce new legislation that would increase penalties for existing statutes — or if necessary create new statutes — designed to protect ICE agents or other law enforcement officers involved in covert operations.

[…]

Disclosing ICE agents’ identities, as threatened, could put the agents and their families in danger.

This is Senator Graham’s response to comments made by House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries during a press briefing last week.

Democrats and immigration rights advocates have criticized ICE agents for wearing masks, likening them to enforcers from fascist and communist regimes.

“This is America. This is not the Soviet Union,” Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a press briefing on June 3.

“We’re not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s. And every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.”

Everything Jeffries said is true. We’re not behind the Iron Curtain. We’re not Hitler’s Germany. We should not have secret police. So, it stands to reason, officers carrying out federal government programs should be immediately identifiable via name tags, marked vehicles, and prominent display of the federal agency they’re working for. We expect this from regular law enforcement. Federal law enforcement shouldn’t be given a special exception to this assumption.

The only reason anyone would advocate for this is because they want to distance their stormtroopers from any form of accountability. When rights are violated (and they are… all the time) during migrant raids, masks and stripping of agency emblems makes it all but impossible to file complaints, much less lawsuits, against government agents who have violated rights. It also ensures officers won’t be named and shamed.

It also protects officers from any internal attempts at accountability, however unlikely they might be under this administration. Ensuring officers always remain unidentifiable hamstrings internal investigations by making any outside recordings of public interactions with officers completely useless.

Any speculation about the danger posed to ICE agents’ “families” is exactly that: speculation. There is no evidence suggesting this sort of threatening is so commonplace it justifies the continuous hiding of agents’ identities. If it was, you’d expect to see more protesters or undocumented migrants facing criminal charges for these threats.

This is Graham, once again, rolling over to show Trump his exposed belly. And that would be fine if it only ensured Graham was beholden to Trump as long as Trump remains in power. But this move affects everyone. And it’s hard to believe it would survive a review by the courts, despite the pre-loading of federal courts Trump performed during his last term.

This is cowardice in service of cowards who claim to fear for their safety even as they wage a war of terror on migrant-heavy neighborhoods and businesses. If you want to wear the jackboots, you should be willing to take everything that comes with it, including the fact that you’re still a public servant carrying out your duties in public. If you don’t like that part of the job or your obligations to the American public, you’re more than welcome to leave the job. And the country.

On the latest episode of the always excellent “The Bugle” podcast, comedian Alice Fraser amusingly describes the horror of what’s happening in Los Angeles the following way:

So let’s just clarify: this is arguably unlawful deployment of military force to enforce peace on peaceful protests over illegal arrests of illegal immigrants.

Here’s what actually happening in LA: Trump’s racist advisor Stephen Miller deliberately manufactured this controversy, directing ICE officials to raid Home Depots where migrant workers pick up day labor jobs, knowing it would provoke protests.

Direct orders from Stephen Miller ignited the Los Angeles protests, leading to the precarious, highly militarized situation the city is currently facing. 

The plan from the beginning was to create confrontations that could justify crushing dissent with military force—even though the LAPD itself has repeatedly said the protests are peaceful and they don’t need military backup. But hey, why let reality get in the way of a good authoritarian power fantasy? Trump and his cronies are gonna fabricate “riots” whether they exist or not because they’ve been dreaming of using the military on Americans for years.

Now we have the manufactured result: Trump has sent both the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles in what California is correctly suing over as illegal federal seizure of state resources. Make no mistake about what’s happening: MAGA Republicans are declaring war on anyone who disagrees with them, and they’ll use military force against Americans to silence dissent.

And on Tuesday, Senator Tom Cotton underscored the point, rehashing his controversial, horrifying New York Times op-ed from five years ago for the Wall Street Journal, advocating for the use of the US military on American protesters. Cotton has literally recycled the same authoritarian playbook, using nearly identical language to justify military force against protesters—proving this has nothing to do with the specific circumstances in LA and everything to do with a long-standing terrifying authoritarian desire to illegally use the US military to crush dissent coming from the American citizenry.

Some of you will likely recall that almost exactly five years ago, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, the warmongering, hate-filled Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas took to the pages of the NY Times to advocate for bringing in the US military to shoot at American protesters and to silence them for their speech.

That 2020 op-ed caused a massive controversy when the NY Times published advocacy for using the US military against US citizens. Some very stupid people tried to turn it into a “censorship” debate when people criticized the Times for platforming such dangerous ideas. But as we pointed out then, the Times’ editorial decisions are their own free speech, not censorship.

The real issue that got lost in that debate was why bloodthirsty MAGA leaders are so eager to turn the US military on American protesters. Then, as now, Cotton’s justification was based on wildly exaggerating isolated incidents amid largely peaceful demonstrations to justify military intervention.

But Cotton obviously kept that op-ed in his pocket all these years, just waiting until he could run it again, this time with an assist from Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. And it’s just as horrific as last time.

Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend, with anarchists setting fire to vehicles, throwing scooters and debris at police, and looting businesses—all while waving foreign flags.

Here’s where Cotton’s entire argument immediately falls apart: the LAPD itself—historically no friend to protesters—has directly contradicted his claims. The department issued an official statement calling the protests peaceful, and LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell explicitly said they didn’t need military assistance and that deploying Marines would likely make the situation worse.

When even the LAPD—an agency with a long history of aggressive tactics—says military intervention is unnecessary and counterproductive, Cotton’s premise is exposed as pure fiction.

What we’re seeing from Cotton is textbook fascist authoritarian rhetoric: take isolated incidents from largely peaceful protests and paint them as citywide chaos. The reality is that protests were confined to a few blocks of downtown LA, with the most significant “violence” being some Waymo cars set on fire (which were likely as much about protesting “big tech” as about protesting ICE). Cotton transforms this into “lawless hellscapes” by non-existent “anarchists” (MAGAs’ favorite imaginary boogeyman) to justify military deployment.

The protests all began and remained mostly peaceful, with music playing, people dancing, vendors selling food and more. The only “violence” tended to come when law enforcement showed up in threatening military gear and provoked responses.

Again, this was entirely part of the plan. And Stephen Miller and Tom Cotton know that this is nonsense, and they don’t care. Their entire goal is to provoke and incite violence in order to justify much worse violence that they’ve wanted to inflict for years. The fact that Cotton is recycling nearly identical language from 2020 proves this isn’t about current circumstances—it’s a pre-written template for justifying military force against any protest he dislikes.

Despite the rising chaos, Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose office likened the riots to a Philadelphia Eagles playoff victory celebration, and Mayor Karen Bass, who refuses to support federal law enforcement, haven’t taken sufficient action to restore law and order.

Oh, fuck all the way off on that. There’s a very, very simple way to “restore law and order” which is to stop sending militarized federal cops into LA and provoking confrontations. Again, Los Angeles didn’t have any problems (or even protests) before Miller sent these goons into a Home Depot parking lot.

Meanwhile, incredibly, Democrats and the liberal media have again called this outbreak of violence “mostly peaceful protests,” while in the same breath blaming the riots, arson, and looting on President Trump for enforcing immigration law. The New York Times described “largely peaceful” riots with fireworks fired at police, cars set on fire, and more than 150 arrests.

Yes, because they have been mostly peaceful.

The threat from the radical left is clear: Don’t enforce immigration laws. If you do, left-wing street militias will burn down cities, and Democratic politicians will back the rioters. The president is absolutely right to reject this threat, enforce immigration laws, and restore civil order.

No, that’s not what is being said. Tom Cotton is stoking fear and nonsense because he’s trying to provoke outrage to get what he wants: the chance to use the US military on the American public. No city is being burnt down. There are no riots. No one is backing “rioters.” What they want is for the US government to stop grabbing people off the street for no reason other than the color of their skin.

From there, Cotton continues the myth-making, pretending that because these sweeps picked up a small number of actual criminals it means that everyone they’re arresting are murderers and child beaters.

Again, Cotton is playing the typical MAGA game of fearmongering by using the rare example to pretend it’s representative, just like I could point to the fact that the leader of Cotton’s party is a convicted criminal (on 34 counts!). Should we thus assume that everyone in the Republican party is a felon who should be sent to jail? It’s one or the other. Either Cotton thinks it’s okay to cherry pick a few people with criminal records and tar everyone associated with them with a broad brush, or he doesn’t.

But, of course, Tom Cotton lives by the motto “it’s okay for Republicans to do this, not anyone else.” Indeed, it’s even worse, because for everyone else he doesn’t even want basic rights or constitutional protections. He wants to send in the military:

The solution now is the same as I said then: an overwhelming show of force to end the riots.

THERE ARE NO RIOTS.

This is just blatant propaganda used to justify the force Cotton has always wanted to use against Americans he doesn’t like. They manufactured every bit of this. They provoked unnecessary confrontations, sending in heavily armed, militarized law enforcement where none was needed, following months of extreme policies and attacks on due process.

Once there, once people started to protest, they ramped up the provocation. And when there were a few rare examples of violence, they falsely labeled them as riots and used them as justification to ramp up the provocation even further.

It’s the “why are you hitting yourself?” school of governance, except with Marines.

There are no riots. No cities are burning. And sending in the military won’t stop the protests, because the protests are about this horrific and dangerous abuse of power.

As always, local police are the first line of defense, but when the police can’t restore order—or aren’t allowed to by Democratic mayors—the National Guard must be called out.

Again, the police have said everything’s fine. The protests have been mostly peaceful. They don’t need to “restore” order, because there is order. They’re not being held back by the mayor or the governor. The only parts of the government they’ve complained about are the federal government sending unnecessary military personnel without any attempt at coordination.

Ask yourself this: to whose benefit is it to pretend that the LAPD has lost control and to blame it on Democratic politicians? Is it to the people of LA? Not at all. It is to Tom Cotton and his fascist buddies.

Cotton wastes no opportunity to further lie:

Mr. Newsom—incompetent and ideological all at once—refused to mobilize the National Guard, leaving Mr. Trump little choice but to federalize the California Guard to protect federal law-enforcement agents and restore order.

This is another outright lie. Reports indicate that Trump called Newsom late Friday night/early Saturday morning, and when Newsom asked about the National Guard, Trump changed the subject. Newsom was never formally asked to mobilize state forces. Trump simply seized control of California’s National Guard without going through proper channels—hence California’s lawsuit over the illegal federal takeover.

So again, you have to ask, why is Cotton lying, other than to get what he wants: the US military to conduct operations on American protestors? It’s pure blood lust against people calling out his bloodthirsty campaign of vengeance.

This is the fascist playbook. Lie, generate controversy, provoke people to protest, insist that their protests are “violent riots,” use that to justify an overly aggressive violent response completely out of proportion to what’s happening.

The end goal is not peace. It’s subjugation and suppression of speech—turning America into the kind of place where questioning Dear Leader gets you a visit from the 82nd Airborne (who, coincidentally, Trump addressed today, an event he used to mock California and cheer on military occupation of an American city).

And the worst part? They’re doing this while wrapping themselves in the flag and calling themselves patriots. Real patriots don’t send Marines after Americans holding signs. But these aren’t patriots—they’re just fascists who figured out red, white, and blue makes better branding than brown shirts.

Don’t let them get away with it.