Crackdowns, Coercion, Surveillance & Chaos - Resistance Threat Brief

Monitoring and exposing threats to democracy defenders in America

Apr 01, 2025

Welcome!

Welcome to The Resistance Sentinel, a publication dedicated to documenting and amplifying the movement to defend democracy against authoritarian rule. In this week’s Threat Brief we expose the escalating threats to dissent in America. From Columbia University’s chilling crackdown on protests to Elon Musk’s coercive influence over advertisers and threats against protesters, authoritarian tactics are infiltrating institutions, silencing resistance, and eroding democratic norms. Simultaneously, the regime and its supporters are using the weaponization of immigration laws, surveillance systems, and federal agencies to target dissenters. Finally, we highlight the alarming return-to-office chaos for federal workers—an intentional move to weaken the civil service and its ability to resist Trump’s authoritarian consolidation.

Criminalizing Protest

Passing Anti-Protest Laws

Recent actions by the leadership of Columbia University provide a chilling example of how anti-protest policies suppress dissent and reflect the temptation of "obeying in advance." The university’s compliance with federal demands to restrict protests and empower campus security is yet one more example of once-powerful institutions crumbling in the face of regime threats.

What happened: Columbia University tightened its protest rules, including banning masks and empowering security officers to arrest students, following federal threats to cut $400 million in funding unless the university addressed alleged antisemitic harassment. While Columbia claims these changes were already planned, the Trump administration’s crackdown on international student protesters and arrests of activists have created a climate of fear, discouraging dissent. The measures align with broader trends of authoritarian control, as other universities face similar pressures.
Why it matters: These developments illustrate how authoritarian regimes use coercion to suppress opposition preemptively by exploiting institutions' vulnerabilities, such as financial dependency. The chilling effect on protests at Columbia reflects a broader strategy of undermining democratic spaces through intimidation and legal restrictions. By complying with demands before outright threats materialize, institutions "obey in advance," weakening collective resistance. Instead of banding together, so far at least, universities are largely going it alone and giving in to regime demands.
The Headlines

Information Control

Disinformation & Propaganda

Elon Musk's use of fear and legal pressure to compel advertisers to spend on X highlights the platform's reliance on coercion rather than genuine value, raising concerns about corporate independence and the spread of propaganda and disinformation. This dynamic threatens resistance movements by enabling the amplification of disinformation while undermining democratic accountability.

What happened: Major brands are allocating minimal advertising budgets to X (formerly Twitter), driven by fear of retaliation from Elon Musk, who wields significant political and legal influence. Reports indicate that some companies are spending on X to avoid potential lawsuits or government interference linked to Musk's connections with the Trump administration. Musk's aggressive tactics include lawsuits against advertisers accused of boycotting the platform and leveraging his influence to pressure ad agencies into compliance. Despite a forecasted 16.5% growth in X's ad revenue for 2025, analysts warn that this growth is unsustainable as it is largely fear-driven.
Why it matters: By coercing companies into funding his platform, Musk consolidates control over a key communication channel, enabling the spread of disinformation and propaganda while eroding corporate autonomy. This undermines resistance efforts by normalizing authoritarian tactics such as intimidation and economic coercion, which are designed to suppress dissent and manipulate public discourse. Furthermore, the alignment of X's policies with right-wing political agendas risks amplifying harmful narratives, weakening democratic institutions, and marginalizing voices advocating for accountability and transparency.
The Headlines

Surveillance

By integrating vast databases and employing AI-driven monitoring, Elon Musk’s DOGE can undermine the privacy, autonomy, and effectiveness of activists and civil society organizations. Government surveillance poses a grave threat to resistance movements by enabling authoritarian regimes to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

What happened: Recent revelations highlight the Trump administration's efforts to centralize sensitive federal databases, including IRS, Social Security, health records, and biometric data, into a unified surveillance apparatus overseen by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This initiative raises concerns about the misuse of personal data for political repression, targeting dissenters, and enforcing compliance with authoritarian policies. Historical examples of surveillance abuses, such as COINTELPRO in the U.S., demonstrate how similar tactics have been used to discredit movements through infiltration, blackmail, and provocation.
Why it matters: Surveillance systems of this scale threaten the foundations of democratic resistance by eroding trust within movements and enabling preemptive repression. Drawing from historical insights on nonviolent resistance, centralized surveillance increases the risk of public fear and self-censorship while diminishing the ability to organize effectively. Resistance movements must prioritize strategies to counteract these systems, including fostering transparency, maintaining nonviolent discipline, and building decentralized networks that are harder to infiltrate or disrupt.
Learn More
Read Alejandra Caraballo’s analysis on Bluesky
Listen to this interview with Citizen Lab founder, Professor Ron Deibert.

Silencing & Criminalizing Speech

The U.S. government is employing immigration laws and disinformation to suppress dissent and chill free speech, signaling a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. These actions aim to silence activists and journalists, undermining transparency, accountability, and the ability of civil society to resist authoritarianism.

Weaponizing Immigration Law to Chill Speech

What happened: Several international students, including Ranjani Srinivasan, Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Yunseo Chung, have been targeted by federal authorities under dubious claims of supporting terrorism or engaging in anti-government protests. These cases often involve questionable evidence and highlight the use of immigration laws as a tool to suppress dissent and intimidate activists. In one instance, a Columbia University student sued the government over deportation attempts linked to her participation in protests.
Why it matters: Weaponizing immigration law against activists creates a chilling effect on political participation and freedom of expression. Historical examples show that authoritarian regimes often use legal frameworks to suppress dissent by targeting vulnerable groups, fostering fear and self-censorship. Such suppression rarely ends with vulnerable groups, however, and is often applied to citizens in the end. The resistance ignores the treatment of these students at its own peril.
The Headlines

Blaming Journalists for Government Leaks

What happened: Prominent media figures such as Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have attacked journalists for reporting on leaked government war plans, accusing them of endangering national security. These narratives shift blame away from systemic failures within government operations and onto reporters who expose misconduct or vulnerabilities.
Why it matters: Targeting journalists for exposing government leaks undermines press freedom and transparency—essential pillars of democracy. By scapegoating reporters, authoritarian regimes can evade accountability while intimidating media outlets into self-censorship. Historical patterns demonstrate that curbing press freedom is a common tactic in consolidating authoritarian control. Accusing journalists of engaging in espionage or criminal behavior is also a common tactic. Expect such rhetoric to be used by government officials, not just pro-regime media.
The Headlines

Lawfare

Trump continues to weaponize the law and the federal bureaucracy against anyone who resists his bid for authoritarian consolidation, including the legal system itself. The Trump administration's attacks on judicial independence, states resisting its policies, and the weaponization of the Attorney General's office reveal a systematic effort to dismantle democratic norms and consolidate authoritarian control. These actions undermine the rule of law, erode state autonomy, and weaponize federal institutions against dissent. This is being done to target those sectors of society that have, so far, most effectively challenged Trump consolidation--i.e. the legal system, states, and Tesla protests.

Attacks on Judges, the Judiciary & Law Firms

What happened: The Trump administration and its allies have intensified their attacks on the judiciary, with Speaker Mike Johnson proposing measures to defund courts and eliminate judicial districts. This campaign includes calls for impeaching judges who oppose Trump and financial backing from Elon Musk for these efforts.
Why it matters: Judicial independence is essential for maintaining checks and balances within a democracy. Undermining the judiciary risks enabling authoritarian governance by removing institutional safeguards against executive overreach. So far, federal judges have dealt a stream of blows to the regime. Expect attacks against judges and law firms to continue and even to escalate.
The Headlines

Attacks on States that Resist

What happened: The Trump administration has targeted California for its progressive policies, launching investigations into its handling of gender identity disclosures in schools. Similarly, Maine faces scrutiny over its refusal to comply with federal mandates regarding immigration enforcement.
Why it matters: These actions undermine federalism by coercing states into compliance with the administration's ideological agenda. Such federal overreach threatens state autonomy and silences opposition, setting a dangerous precedent for authoritarian control. Again, this is being done because states have seen a measure of success in challenging regime efforts so far. What’s more, in the American system, states have a high degree of autonomy. Bringing them to heel will be essential for Trump’s authoritarian consolidation. He and his advisors know this. That is why they seek to make examples of any states that resist.
The Headlines

Attorney General as Regime Attack Dog

What happened: Attorney General Pam Bondi has prioritized prosecuting protesters opposing Elon Musk’s Tesla, labeling them as domestic terrorists. Her actions serve Musk’s corporate interests at the expense of civil liberties.
Why it matters: The weaponization of the Department of Justice against anti-Musk protests is meant to dampen the negative effects of these protests against Musk’s business. Economic noncooperation against powerful business interests supporting the regime are an effective means of resistance. That is being demonstrated once again in the case of Tesla, whose sales and stock price are plummeting worldwide as a result. AG Bondi’s threats against Tesla protestors is an attempt to shore up this pillar of regime support.
The Headlines

Pam Bondi is more interested in protecting Elon Musk than defending our democracy

Violence & Threats

Elon Musk continues to threaten Tesla protests, while right wing media calls for political deportation campaigns and private groups aid Trump’s crackdown on dissent. These developments underscore the importance of a sick form of “public-private partnership” in the consolidation of authoritarian power.

What happened: As Tesla continues to face protests globally, Elon Musk threatens those involved, suggesting they are terrorists and could be sent to prison in El Salvador. Separately, U.S. government actions targeting foreign students and protesters, particularly those involved in Gaza demonstrations, are receiving assistance from private advocacy groups who are helping to identify and denounce pro-Palestine protesters to the U.S. government. Meanwhile, right-wing media have intensified calls for denaturalizing and deporting American citizens under the guise of combating "anti-American" activities.
Why it matters: These events illustrate the interplay between corporate power, media influence, private advocacy organizations, and government actions that can suppress dissent and consolidate control. Retaliation against critics, deportation campaigns, and media-driven narratives are tools often used to stifle opposition and entrench authoritarianism. Resisting these tactics is essential to preserving democratic accountability, protecting human rights, and ensuring that dissent remains a cornerstone of free societies. It is also a reminder that authoritarians succeed with significant help from the private sector, including corporations, media, and advocacy groups.
The Headlines

Federal workers are facing a chaotic and demoralizing return to offices that lack basic supplies, adequate space, and functioning infrastructure, revealing how the Trump administration's abrupt termination of remote work appears designed to push employees out of government service and weaken federal agencies' capacity to fulfill their missions and resist Trump’s authoritarian consolidation.

What happened: The Trump administration has ordered federal employees back to in-person work, terminating remote arrangements that had been in place for years. Employees returning to offices are encountering severe shortages of basic supplies, inadequate workspaces, and logistical nightmares. Many report having to bring their own toilet paper, jockeying for limited parking and desk space, and dealing with overloaded networks and sanitation issues. Some workers are still waiting to find out if they will be assigned to a building near where they live or asked to relocate across the country in the coming weeks.
Why it matters: The chaotic return-to-office mandate is designed to demoralize federal workers and push them to quit, aligning with the administration's goal of dramatically shrinking the government workforce. This approach follows a pattern seen in democratic backsliding, where executives weaponize state institutions against perceived opponents. Research shows authoritarian leaders often attack and weaken institutions like the civil service to consolidate power. The disruption of federal agencies reduces their effectiveness in serving the public and enforcing regulations, while creating incentives for institutions to sideline themselves rather than challenge authority. By undermining the federal workforce through difficult working conditions and disrupting employees' work-life balance, the administration weakens a key pillar of democratic governance and potential resistance to authoritarian consolidation.
The Headlines