logo
The Protests Are Just Starting

The Protests Are Just Starting

The Atlantica day ago

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
For months, as Donald Trump has hollowed out the executive branch, defied courts, and worked to suppress dissent, his critics have rightly worried about the lack of visible public opposition. Democratic Party leaders are still obsessing over the 2024 election; outside organizations are fatigued; and mass protests such as those seen in the early months of Trump's first term have been missing.
That began to change over the past few days, as demonstrations arose in Los Angeles over immigration-enforcement operations by federal agents. As they begin to spread to other cities, these protests look like the first mass movement against the second Trump administration. And with events scheduled this weekend to serve as counterprogramming to Trump's birthday military parade, they have the potential to grow.
Yet as this moment begins, some members of the anti-Trump coalition worry that these demonstrations will bring about disaster. Protests are messy; even when the majority of participants are peaceful, just a few bad actors can produce instances of violence, and big protests always draw a few bad actors. Observers have also worried about the optics of protesters carrying Mexican flags, lest the protests be seen as unpatriotic or anti-American. One overriding concern is that even minor missteps by Trump's critics will give him an excuse to overreach further. 'Trump is expecting resistance,' my colleague Tom Nichols wrote over the weekend. 'You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext.'
These concerns are understandable, and they are offered in good faith by dyed-in-the-wool Trump critics, who don't hesitate to call him a budding authoritarian. They're correct that Trump is welcoming confrontation. Trying to convince anti-Trump allies about the most effective tactics can feel much more productive than appealing to Trump to respect protests or the rule of law, especially because his actions are frequently erratic and irrational. But the focus on specific tactics, or on trying to predict how the president will respond, overlooks how effective large protests have been—not just historically, but also during Trump's first term. The same could be true now.
None of this is to excuse violent protests, which are dangerous and destructive, and also usually politically counterproductive in America. Actual violence in Los Angeles appears to be limited and small in scale, and Trump's decision to federalize thousands of National Guard members and deploy hundreds of U.S. Marines is, as I wrote yesterday, both legally dubious and wildly disproportionate. The most heralded victims so far have been some Waymo driverless taxis, and local authorities blamed scattered violence on provocateurs who are tangential to the protests. Most protesters appear to be on the streets simply to witness and to speak out against the administration's immigration raids. Take the president's word for it: Even Trump says the situation is ' very well under control.'
The existence of large demonstrations, which are spreading into other cities, is itself a sign of Trump's vulnerability. His turn to the military to try to enforce his will, less than six months into his term, is a gesture of authoritarianism, but it's also an indication of his weak sway over the public. Plenty of experience shows that Trump almost always folds. Besides, Trump definitely wins if people disperse because they don't want to provoke him. Peaceful protests can be very effective at changing policy and public opinion, and the biggest win for Trump might be for people to be so scared of what he'll do next that they do nothing at all. As the journalist Asawin Suebsaeng noted on Sunday, you would be hard-pressed to find Americans counseling protesters in repressive nations—such as Iran or Burma or Hungary—to stop protesting just because their leaders might be spoiling for a fight.
Furthermore, gaming out strategy and predicting how things might end here (or anywhere) is very difficult. This applies to everyone involved. Some advising caution are worried that protests will give Trump cover to intensify a crackdown, but he hardly needs an excuse, and his reactions are unpredictable. Meanwhile, people around Trump are very confident that they're in a winning position on immigration. 'We couldn't script this any better,' someone 'close to the White House' told Politico. 'Democrats are again on the '20' side of an 80–20 issue.' But why should anyone believe them?
The story of Trump's career is overreach followed by public opposition—including on immigration—and sometimes that opposition sways him. During his first term, Trump reversed his family-separation policy in summer 2018 because of widespread horror. Trump and his advisers were also convinced that protests against police brutality, which turned violent in cities such as Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon, were going to win them the 2020 election, and they were proved wrong about that.
The backlash has come even faster this term. Although Trump won the election with a campaign that focused intensely on immigration enforcement, Americans have been less enthusiastic about the results now that they're experiencing their effects. Lots of people support deporting criminals, but they don't like it when beloved community members such as Carol Hui, the woman whose story became a rallying point for a conservative Missouri town, are removed. (She has since been released. TACO.)
In April, a Washington Post / ABC News / Ipsos poll found that a majority of people disapproved of Trump's immigration policies. A CBS News / YouGov poll taken before the L.A. protests found him slightly higher—but at just 50 percent approval. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris finds that coverage of the improper deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador hurt Trump's approval ratings. YouGov polls conducted since the protests began have found that pluralities of Americans disapprove of Trump deploying both the National Guard and the Marines.
None of these polls should be taken as gospel, but they should give pause about drawing conclusions as to how the public at large will view what's happening in Los Angeles. They are also a reminder that public opinion is not immutable—it's dynamic and can be shaped. The anti-Trump movement can much more easily figure out what it stands for than it can predict what Trump might do next, or how other people will react.
Today's News
The Pentagon doubled the number of California National Guard members in Los Angeles and deployed about 700 Marines to the city's protests yesterday.
A shooter killed at least 10 people at a high school in Graz, Austria, according to police.
The State Department ordered diplomatic missions on Friday to resume processing visas for Harvard University students and exchange visitors.
Evening Read
The Wyoming Hospital Upending the Logic of Private Equity
By Megan Greenwell
After years of trying to improve his hospital in Riverton, Wyoming—first as a doctor, then as a board member and volunteer activist—­Roger Gose was ready to give up …
'You want to leave a place better than you found it,' he told me. And for a long time, he felt like he had.
But that was before LifePoint Health, one of the biggest rural-hospital chains in the country, saw his hospital as a distressed asset in need of saving through a ruthless search for efficiencies, and before executives at Apollo Global Management, a private-equity firm whose headquarters looms above the Plaza Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, began calling the shots. That was before Gose realized that, in the private-equity world, a hospital was just another widget, a tool to make money and nothing more.
More From The Atlantic
Culture Break
Watch (or skip). Ballerina, the new John Wick spin-off (in theaters now), succeeds as a piece of junky fun —but it also shows the trap of the cinematic side quest, David Sims writes.
Examine. As Donald Trump prepares to host the musical Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center, a Victor Hugo scholar explores the real message behind the novel.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Newsweek

time17 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.

China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word
China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word

BEIJING (Reuters) -China on Thursday affirmed a trade deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, saying both sides needed to abide by the consensus and adding China always kept its word. The deal, reached after Trump and China's President Xi Jinping spoke on the telephone last week, brings a delicate truce in a trade war between the world's two largest economies. "China has always kept its word and delivered results," Lin Jian, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said at a regular news conference. "Now that a consensus has been reached, both sides should abide by it." The Trump-Xi telephone call broke a standoff that had flared just weeks after a preliminary deal was reached in Geneva. The call was quickly followed by more talks in London that Washington said had put "meat on the bones" of the Geneva agreement to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs. The Geneva deal had faltered over China's continued curbs on minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods to China. Trump on Wednesday said he was very happy with the trade deal. "Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me," Trump said on Truth Social. "Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%." Still, specifics of the latest deal and details on how it will be implemented remain unclear. A White House official said the 55% represents the sum of a baseline 10% "reciprocal" tariff Trump has imposed on goods imported from nearly all U.S. trading partners, 20% on all Chinese imports associated with his accusation that China had not done enough to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., and pre-existing 25% levies on imports from China put in place during Trump's first presidential term. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

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