The government has long abandoned its duty to uphold our First Amendment right to peaceful protest. Within the last week, the nation has witnessed an influx of immigration raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Tensions have peaked in Los Angeles, California with the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in response to non-violent protestors. On the other side of the country, New York City protesters have rallied in response to ICE detaining immigrants directly from their court hearings. Demonstrators outside of Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan were met with violent confrontations and several arrests. 

Just last year, the NYPD’s largest police union, the Police Benevolent Association (PBA), disputed a settlement over the department’s severe violence inflicted upon protestors during the 2020 George Floyd demonstrations. The 2023 settlement, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) amid other private firms, aims to change the way the NYPD responds to protests by prohibiting officers from enacting harmful strategies like kettling and mass arrests. It also requires a new role within the department that oversees these responses, in order to create a system of accountability. While this was intended to protect protesters’ rights, the PBA argues these changes will limit the way officers maintain order, exposing their resistance to concerns of abuse. The reality remains that while the NYPD is dispatched to ‘de-escalate’ peaceful protests, they instead reinforce the very brutality that fuels these calls for justice. 

It is particularly insulting that the PBA claims these reforms would “place the officers themselves at risk,” considering the NYPD’s documented history of senseless violence towards protesters. The 2024 shooting of multiple civilians at the Sutter Avenue Station in East Brooklyn sparked protests that quickly turned violent, with tensions escalating even further during the Columbia University demonstrations that followed. Nationally, the reach of this violence is undeniable with the ongoing ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where demonstrators have reported being tear-gassed and beaten. 

Outside Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, demonstrators protested ICE’s disturbing tactic of detaining immigrants immediately after their court hearings, despite obvious evidence of them complying with the legal process. The NYPD’s decision to meet these protests with force and arrests reflects a broader federal attitude that frames civil unrest as criminality rather than civic engagement with ongoing issues. The effect of violent policing is not accidental; it is designed to discourage public dissent. 

This kind of behavior, hidden under the guise of ‘de-escalation’, fuels aggressive policing strategies and encourages unjust crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations. At any capacity, it refuses to address the root causes of protest and results in civilians second-guessing their participation. Young people, who are often the first to mobilize, are left weighing their futures against the risk of being arrested, suspended from school, or injured. Working-class adults may worry about job security or family safety. Protestors are painted as a nuisance or troublemakers when they should be seen as active members of society that push for equity to create a far better one. The obvious goal is to deter future protests and to silence the voices that challenge the status quo. 

Policing as an institution is rooted in violence; the use of the National Guard mirrors the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group in purpose and approach. The notorious SRG unit was created in 2015 to combat threats of terrorism, but the NYPD has been deploying it actively for protests and gatherings with no real justification. In just 5 years, their militarized tactics ultimately incited the recent settlement agreement, revealing how deeply entrenched violence is in their approach to maintaining control. The PBA’s recent opposition exposes the department’s inability or unwillingness to distinguish actual threats from nonviolent protesters, which begs the question of what public safety may look like for the communities that participate in these demonstrations. They’re often marginalized groups who already have a history of being targeted by the police.  

Settlements may be reached, but the underlying habits surrounding these police responses do not necessarily change. That is how the pattern of brutal force at gatherings focused on issues of inequality and injustice continues to go on. Community leaders, politicians, and local organizations must put further pressure on holding the NYPD and other police departments accountable – and accountable doesn’t mean having taxpayers help pay millions in misconduct lawsuits against officers. Accountability means dismantling an institution that prioritizes its power over the well-being of the civilians who make the city what it is.  

Protests should be a space to unite, mourn, and rally for change. We cannot celebrate the Boston Tea Party in elementary school, to then dismiss current-day protests as threats. If we truly believe in the ideals that built this nation, then it’s on us to keep those with power in check. Only with consistent pressure, transparent leadership, and a genuine commitment to equity can we ensure every voice is respected, not silenced. 

A protest against violence does not happen before an injustice. 

Jaff Joseph