Conservative think tank behind 'broken windows' policing and Trump's anti-DEI push has a new target

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Independent

Sunday 28 June 2026 09:35 EDT


A conservative think tank that backed President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI push has its sights set on a new target. The Manhattan Institute has been a front-line supporter of Trump’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the U.S. It also championed “broken windows” policing, the idea that cracking down on smaller offenses like vandalism can help deter more serious crimes.

Now, they’re advocating for state lawmakers to target protest-related crimes by introducing harsher penalties for groups of demonstrators who commit offenses like vandalism, blocking roads or property destruction. Protests have long been a target for the right, and Trump has repeatedly blamed violent demonstrations on the “radical left” in the U.S. And now, this latest push by the Manhattan Institute, which was first reported by Wired, has some legal experts worried.

“This is aimed at trying to silence public demonstrations, public assemblies, and really give those in power tools to dismantle systems and groups who are trying to even the playing field for the public and hold those in power accountable,” Darrell Hill, the policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, told The Independent.

Tal Fortgang, a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is urging state lawmakers to introduce bills that would classify protest-related crimes, like disorderly conduct or vandalism, as felony “civil terrorism” offenses.

Read more: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/protest-arrests-manhattan-institute-b2997813.html

[mahina]

1. This was always the plan, and why they constantly accused the Obama and Biden families with bogus smears.

[QueerDuck]

2. We can reject right-wing traps like this without defending vandalism or property destruction.

This is a classic political trap designed to put Democrats on the defensive, and we shouldn't take the bait.

The Manhattan Institute's push to classify basic disorderly conduct or vandalism as felony "civil terrorism" is an obvious, dangerous overreach designed to chill legitimate, peaceful first amendment assemblies. We should absolutely oppose creating authoritarian tools that can be weaponized against peaceful citizens holding those in power accountable.

But the way we win this argument is by being completely clear: peaceful protest is a constitutional right, but vandalism, rioting, and property destruction are crimes.

Mainstream Democrats have always stood for law and order alongside civil rights. We don't support broken windows, blocking highways, or destroying property. By firmly drawing that line, we completely neutralize their trap.

We can protect the First Amendment from right-wing overreach without ever giving them the ammunition to falsely claim we excuse lawlessness.

[Ilikepurple]

7. I'm not sure who here is defending property destruction as a form of political speech

Also, I’m not sure what the trap is here? Did this sort of legislation pass in Utah because unwary Utah democrats fell into the trap. I believe that fighting the narrative that criminal activity during civil protest raises misdemeanors to felonies that are best described as civil terrorism requires direct confrontation with that narrative itself.
I’m not sure how agreeing that breaking existing laws is a crime will ensure that this already moving policy shift towards classifying misdemeanors as civil terrorism felonies will be stopped in its tracks. Many democratic representatives have already made this point clear regarding the destruction of property. The disagreement lies in how serious one considers the crimes within the context of protest. In the confines of protest, should they be elevated, should they be minimized, or should they be treated as they would be outside those confines? Advocates for these enhancements already refer to protest crimes as civil terrorism. The advocates of this policy only need acceptance of this shift in characterization to succeed in many jurisdictions regardless of mainstream Democrats’ proclamations of non support.

[QueerDuck]

12. You make an excellent point about the legal debate, but the trap I'm talking about is purely electoral.

You are entirely right that when it comes to the literal legislative fight, Democrats must directly confront and defeat the dangerous "civil terrorism" narrative. Nobody should accept elevating standard misdemeanors into felonies just because they happen during a protest.

The "trap" I am referring to isn't about what happens inside a state house... instead, it is about how the opposition weaponizes this issue on the campaign trail to independent swing voters.

The opposition wants Democrats to sound like they are minimizing property destruction or accepting blocking highways, because they can turn around and use those soundbites in devastating general election attack ads.

By being crystal clear that we fully support the first amendment but draw a hard line against actual vandalism, we completely disarm their ability to paint us as soft on crime. We can aggressively fight their overreaching "civil terrorism" laws much more effectively if we don't allow them to successfully trap us into looking like we excuse lawlessness.

[Callie1979]

13. PREACH!!!!!!! When wil we LEARN this?? This is going to be an issue in the GA Gov race.

When the 2020 protests in ATL began to turn violent; Mayor Bottoms immediately came out & said "we're not going to stand for this" and started cracking down hard. At the START...and it was working.
But then "community leaders" went to her and complained about being heavy handed & she caved The city then had people again turn violent, buildings burn & a child KILLED. She didnt run for reelection.
We will see nothing but those pictures in the coming ads for Nov.

[SamuelTheThird]

3. When we have mass unemployment unrest, they will want 'kill on sight' power

[dave99]

5. well we know where the owners live too

[dave99]

4. These Laws have existed for DECADES already in EVERY locality ! Vandalism - done disorderly conduct - done

REPUBLICANS only want to STOP people from being HEARD and their crimes from being TOLD.

[Grins]

6. HATE headlines like this. Just write "Manhattan Institute!"

They have been hypocritical asswads for years! They publish fantasy “research “ papers and flog them around as “Proof!!!” whatever good, decent, and needed legislation gets stopped dead. ACA was one of their big targets. Critical Race Theory another.

[AZ8theist]

11. OR............................................

"Reich Wing, Fascist, anti-Democracy Propaganda Institute"

That works for me.

[aggiesal]

8. I'm wondering if they would apply this to Jan. 6th tourists? n/t

[warmfeet]

9. Of course not.

The law, the rules, apply to the opposition only (to democrats). This can be our new form of government if we go along (fascism). I am going to fight like hell against this bullshit.

[Callie1979]

14. NOTHING applies to them.

[J_William_Ryan]

10. A front-line supporter of Trump's efforts to establish a fascist state

Classic conservative reactionaryism: use authoritarian force to compel conformity and punish dissent.

As an aside, here is something else the media get wrong: there’s no such thing as diversity, equity and inclusion ‘programs’; DEI has nothing to do with hiring or employment advancement – there’s no such thing as ‘DEI’ as misrepresented and lied about by conservatives.

[OldBaldy1701E]

15. ""This is aimed at trying to silence public demonstrations, public assemblies..."

That is horrible.

Will we put a stop to it?