logo
The LA protests reveal what actually unites the Trump right

The LA protests reveal what actually unites the Trump right

Voxa day ago

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here.
When President Donald Trump and Elon Musk had their dramatic falling-out last week, it appeared the right was on the brink of civil war — with Musk's allies in the 'tech right' poised to battle Steve Bannon and his faction of populist tribunes. The battle lines reflected deep disagreements between the right's factions about the nature and purpose of government, divides made increasingly salient by Trump's policies in areas like trade.
But now, after several days of protests and unrest in Los Angeles, everyone is once again reading from the same hymnal — condemning disorder and calling for a harsh crackdown. Even Musk is back to retweeting Trump like nothing happened.
Why this intra-right ceasefire? Because what's happening in LA reminds every component of the modern right why they're in coalition together: They believe that progressives in general, and the 'woke' left activists in particular, represent an existential threat to everything good about the United States.
This vision has deep philosophical roots on the right, which has always positioned itself around defending elements of the status quo from its enemies on the left. But the 2025 American right tells itself a very particular version of that general story, one that focuses on the events of summer 2020.
On the Right
The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
In their minds, the combination of Covid restrictions, mainstream calls for wide-ranging social change, and mass street upheaval was the terrible terminus of modern progressive politics. Whatever their internal disagreements on issues like trade or spending or even immigration, the modern right agrees that the left must never be permitted another year like 2020 — and that Trump is the best vehicle for stopping it.
The Trump coalition has appeared fractious for much of 2025 because the big policy moves, like tariffs, have made areas of disagreement in the coalition more salient. It appears united for now because the news cycle has shifted to a topic — the specter of radical left street disorder — on which nearly everyone inside of it agrees.
The right's long 2020
Philosophically speaking, the right has long been defined by its emphasis on the value of stability — as odd as it may seem in the era of Trump's radically destabilizing administration.
Conservative theorists, most notably Edmund Burke, have long maintained that political flourishing depends on the existence of stable social rules developed gradually and from the bottom up over the course of generations. Those who seek to overturn this order, either through sweeping legislation or revolutionary violence, will inevitably do more harm than good. For this reason, the right's intellectuals have long positioned themselves against what they saw as instances of leftist street violence.
Yet Trump has spent the past 10 years setting the American political order on fire — demolishing its norms, enacting radical changes to its longstanding policies, and flagrantly violating its laws. He even incited an honest-to-God insurrection aimed at overturning an election. How could any of this fit with a tradition premised on the values of stability and order?
The answer, in part, is that it doesn't. The intellectual right has adopted a self-consciously revolutionary mode of politics, seeing the current political order as a fundamentally corrupt system that deserves to be torn down. This is a reactionary rejection of Burkean conservatism, which is why so many erstwhile Burkeans became the Never Trumpers who publish at places like the Dispatch and the Bulwark.
And yet, there's a crucial element of the Burkean emphasis on order that the Trump right has retained: a belief that some specific elements of American life remain uncorrupted, and that the 'woke left' must be defeated for those elements to again become the country's defining traits. Traditional religion, conservative cultural values, a market economy, the notion of national pride, and even nationhood itself — these are the elements of the United States that the modern right sees as being under attack from the left and the institutions (like universities) where it is in control.
This sense of siege, of a need for counterrevolution, crystalized in the summer of 2020.
It wasn't only that there was rioting in America's cities, or that major American cultural institutions were aligning themselves with once-radical views on race and gender. It's that both were happening at the same time, suggesting that radicals in the streets were seizing the commanding heights of American public life.
'The individual acts of violence — the sacking of urban police stations, the Molotov cocktails thrown at police cruisers, the toppling of historical statues, the wholesale looting of big-box stores — were, in fact, the representations of a long-running cultural revolution,' leading right-wing activist Chris Rufo wrote in his 2023 book America's Cultural Revolution. 'In city after city, [Black Lives Matter] activists, including its paramilitaries in the black nationalist and anarcho-socialist factions, shut down urban neighborhoods, intimidated residents, and established their ideology as a social requisite.'
This is, to my mind, a wildly exaggerated narrative of that summer's events (a consistent problem in Rufo's work). It vastly overstates the pervasiveness of the violence and paints with an ideologically overbroad brush, ignoring that most people were in the streets because they were deeply and sincerely concerned about racism in policing.
Yet there's some truth as well. The summer's events, including riots in Minneapolis and Seattle's disastrous 'autonomous zone', did real harm to real people — in ways that many mainstream liberals and leftists were unwilling to admit at the time.
That liberal elites endorsed street protest amid the Covid pandemic, when the public health establishment was recommending people stay away from mass gatherings, fueled the right's outrage. It was, to them, a sign that the so-called establishment was not only flawed but fully corrupt; so shot through with political bias that it would tell people to go protest for George Floyd, but stop attending church.
From this was born the mythic underpinnings of the modern Trump right: a deep fear of chaotic, violent left-wing radicals, paired with a sense that mainstream liberals and nonpartisan experts are in thrall to said extremists. This is the narrative that knits together the various factions of MAGA 2.0: the tech right, the national populists, the atheist anti-wokes, the Christian nationalists, and on down the line. There are reasonable grounds to doubt that everyone believes it sincerely, but it defines much of the conceptual vocabulary right-wingers use to communicate across factional lines. We may not agree on everything, they say, but we are all against that.
What's happening in LA right now brings this set of uniting concerns to the fore.
Once again, progressives and radicals have taken to the streets to demonstrate against what they see as social injustices. Once again, there are clear instances of looting and violence (though I'd add that these are once again being widely exaggerated). And once again, it appears to many on the right as if the liberal establishment were siding with the people in the streets — with LA Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (correctly) downplaying the scale of the violence and rejecting Trump's efforts to send in the troops, in large part because they believe it to be at once unnecessary and counterproductive.
It is thus no surprise that in the face of recent events, the right's infighting would give way to a display of unity. When the right sees the specter of 2020 looming over America, its cadres feel an urgent need to form ranks.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday

time6 minutes ago

Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday

A federal hearing is scheduled Thursday over whether the Trump administration can deploy National Guardsmen and Marines to the Los Angeles area to assist with enforcing federal immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block expansion of what they called President Donald Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization." The request, which was filed as part of Newsom and Bonta's lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeks to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines beyond protecting federal buildings and property. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Bonta argued in the filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines have been deployed to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here."

Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers
Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers

Politico

time6 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers

The Trump administration appears to have put on hold plans to dramatically ramp up transfers of undocumented migrants to Guantanamo Bay. As of Monday, the transfers were expected to happen later in the week but were delayed in part because unrest related to immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles 'got in the way,' said an administration official. The official said it's unclear how long the plan may be shelved. The person and others were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions. At the State Department, where many officials have urged the Department of Homeland Security to abandon the plan, there's now confusion about what comes next, according to a U.S. diplomat familiar with the situation. State Department officials have been told that clarification about the Guantanamo transfer process is coming at some point and not to use previous guidance on what to tell reporters, the U.S. diplomat said. The apparent delay comes after POLITICO reported Tuesday that the administration was vetting at least 9,000 migrants for transfer to the base. The proposal, if it becomes a reality, would be an exponential increase from the roughly 500 migrants who have been held for short periods at the base since February. It would also be a major step toward realizing a plan President Donald Trump announced in January to use the facility to hold as many as 30,000 migrants found to be in the U.S. illegally. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X that reports of the plan were incorrect. 'Not happening,' she said. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, when asked Thursday about the apparent delay, said: 'That's not true. It was never a plan to begin with.' The proposal was designed primarily to free up bed space at detention facilities on domestic American soil, as the White House pushes Immigration and Customs Enforcement for higher arrest and deportation numbers. The agency is also tight on detention space and pressing Congress for additional funding to hire more agents and expand domestic detention capacity. Documents obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday noted that the plan had come together only recently and could still change. The expectation was that the detainees would be at Guantanamo Bay temporarily before being deported to their countries of origin, though it's not clear how long they would be held at the U.S. naval base. U.S. diplomats have been particularly worried about plans to include some 800 Europeans in the group to be transferred. They worry it could strain alliances with European nations that are typically cooperative in taking back deportees. Many European officials have been blindsided by the plans. Italy's foreign minister has said his country is doing 'everything' it can to prevent its citizens from being sent there. According to documents seen by POLITICO, at least two Italians are under consideration for a transfer to Guantanamo. The U.S. facility at Guantanamo, which is on Cuban soil but has been a U.S. naval base for many years, grew notorious because it has been used to hold terrorism suspects detained after the 9/11 attacks. Immigrant rights groups have sued the Trump administration in recent months in a bid to block its use of Guantanamo to house immigrant detainees. A federal class-action lawsuit pending in Washington indicates that there are roughly 70 immigrant detainees currently held there and facing 'punitive' conditions, such as insufficient food, weekly changes of clothes and rodent infestation.

Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

San Francisco Chronicle​

time6 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The move is expected to become the state's latest legal challenge with the federal government. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country,' the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, 'If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric.' 'What this does is it gives us freedom,' said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install 'infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. 'If it's a day ending in Y, it's another day of Trump's war on California,' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in an email ahead of Trump's signing. 'We're fighting back.' California's attorney general is expected to speak at a news conference Thursday morning. The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store