For Trump, protest is not a social demand; it is a political commodity. If it is against him, it is rebellion and must be suppressed; if it is against his rival, it is an asset for pressure and intervention.
By Keivan Darabkhani, Public Law Researcher
Donald Trump’s behavior towards domestic protests in the United States, especially the protests by immigrants in states like California, offers a clear picture of his real logic regarding “protest.” This logic is not based on the people’s rights but on the preservation of power and political interests. The dispatch of the National Guard, threats of military intervention, widespread arrests of protesters, and the use of harsh language demonstrated that, in Trump’s view, protest is only acceptable as long as it does not challenge his desired order.
In this framework, domestic protest is quickly redefined from a social demand to “a threat against the regime,” and harsh treatment is not seen as an option, but as “a duty to defend sovereignty.” The very government that uses security as an excuse to restrict protests domestically, presents itself as a defender of protesters beyond its borders.
The contradiction is exactly here: while Trump previously responded to protests by immigrants in the U.S. with military force and regarded them as a threat to order, these days he claims in a statement about Iran that if peaceful protesters are violently confronted, the U.S. “will come to their rescue.” This position is not driven by humanitarian concern but is a clear example of double standards.
In Trump’s logic, if the protest is against his policies within the U.S., it is “rebellion” and deserves to be suppressed. But if it happens in another country, it becomes a tool for political pressure, bargaining, and intervention. This is the point at which the “right to protest” turns from a general principle into a consumable tool. Trump is more of an economic-political actor than a classic politician; someone who understands politics through the logic of the market. For him, the emotions of societies, popular protests, and even human lives are part of the political bargaining toolkit. Wherever his interests requires, he defends the harshest treatments, and wherever his profit requires it, he adopts a posture of support for the people.
This behavioral duality carries a clear message: Trump’s issue is not “protest”; the issue is controlling the narrative and managing interests. Security, freedom, human rights, and even human lives are, in this logic, flexible concepts that are redefined based on geography and political profit.
In contrast to Trump’s double standards, the experience of the protests by the people of Iran has shown that the right to protest economic and livelihood problems can be expressed in a peaceful and controlled manner. Protesters, with awareness, and officials, with prudence, maintained the boundary between legal demands and anarchic actions, and reform measures were taken to address the people’s demands, so that peaceful protests were separated from chaos and infiltration by targeted groups, while social order and public security were preserved, all in respect for the right to protest.
Perhaps the most important point is this: in the world of politics based on profit, those who make the most claims about defending the people do not necessarily show the most commitment to it. Trump’s behavior is a stark example of this reality.
