The Casualties of Political Theater

By Noah Rothman

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

 

In the weeks leading up to the shooting of Alex Pretti by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis, observers might have assumed that the loudest supporters and opponents of Donald Trump’s deportation regime were at odds. On matters of principle, perhaps, they were and remain in conflict. But when it came to their respective tactics, these two factions were not working at cross-purposes.

 

The second Trump administration took office operating under the (correct) assumption that Joe Biden’s rhetorical openness to the flight of immigrants north to the U.S. border contributed to the American immigration crisis as much as did his permissive policies. They resolved to execute a campaign of “shock and awe” in response, not only to deport unlawful migrants but to deter their would-be imitators from making the trip.

 

To that end, administration principals such as Stephen Miller implemented daily deportation quotas (to the tune of 3,000), zeroed in on deportation targets with additional criminal complaints as well as workers in sectors like hospitality and farm labor (until Trump put a stop to that), and executed “turn and burn” raids in America’s major metropolitan areas — high-profile shows of force that emphasized the show over the force.

 

These activities, the administration understood, were likely to catalyze a hyperactive response from their left-wing opponents — not that the Trump administration feared that prospect. A conflict with the left’s activist class would reinforce a contrast between Republican and Democratic governance, from which Trump and his allies benefited immensely in 2024.

 

The administration therefore deployed National Guard troops to American metros to subdue the “domestic terrorists” that had put those cities “under siege.” The president declared “war” on the nation’s urban centers. His subordinates castigated the “left-wing radicals,” “illegal criminals,” and “rioters” who stood athwart the execution of federal law. As House GOP press secretary Mike Marinella put it, “Democrats will always side with chaos, rioters, open borders and foreign criminals.” The Washington Post couldn’t help but observe that “Republicans see a midterm opportunity in the unrest.”

 

So, too, did Democrats and activists. Wired reporter Dell Cameron observed that “protest policing in major US cities increasingly took on the character of spectacle” last year, although he somehow missed the dramatic productions put on by demonstrators, agitators, and anti-law-enforcement vigilantes. Honestly, it’s been hard to miss. The often (literally) costumed and always provocative displays of defiance of law enforcement mask an even more irresponsible activist enterprise dedicated to placing well-meaning objectors between armed law enforcement officers and their apprehension targets. The activists blow whistles to disorient law enforcement. They antagonize and provoke with no apparent awareness that their actions could have dire consequences. And they’re egged on by the Democratic political class.

 

Before the consequences of his actions imposed some sobriety on him, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz casually described the White House’s law enforcement prerogatives as acts of “organized brutality against the people of Minnesota.” He invoked the Civil War, accused America’s public servants of acting as “Donald Trump’s modern-day gestapo,” and advised his citizens to continue to confront federal immigration officers and all but deputized them in a campaign to “bank evidence for future prosecution.” Oregon Governor Tina Kotek denounced the application of lethal force by federal agents who face an imminent threat to their lives. “They are hurting people, and they are destroying day by day what we hold dear,” she said of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Dozens of Democrats spared no concern for propriety when they boosted one activist teacher’s claim that federal law enforcement was abducting children and using them as “bait.” As Minnesota Senator Tina Smith contended, ICE tactics “can only be described as pure evil.”

 

All this high-strung rhetoric is designed to inflame passions. The whole point of the exercise is to goad their side’s most committed activists into subordinating their better judgment to the demands of a moral panic. The conflict these appeals to emotion is supposed to inspire has come to be seen as an instrument of political utility.

 

To some extent, they have it right. The images that flow from political combat in the streets serve everyone’s political purpose. To the left, they harken back to an age when the powerful and the police colluded to bludgeon youthful idealists into compliance — a time when the activist set vaguely recalls that the left were the good guys. For the right and law enforcement’s supporters, lawless rabble in the streets represents everything they oppose. That riotous collection of malcontents has designs on them as much as they do the police. Law enforcement is the last line of defense. Therefore they deserve our support, as does the administration that has their backs.

 

These calculations make some elementary sense, even if they would make a casualty of civic courtesy in the process. It was likely foreordained, however, that national comity would not be the only casualty of this profoundly irresponsible pageant. All actors in this drama now seem to be reluctantly and belatedly coming to their senses, but that is likely a temporary reprieve. The show must go on.