What Happened
In the first three months of 2025, at least 41 anti-protest bills were introduced across 22 U.S. states, with 32 of those introduced after President Trump’s inauguration. These bills primarily target protests related to Palestinian rights, climate activism, and anti-war movements.
At the federal level, the “Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy Act” is under consideration. It would impose up to 20 years in prison and significant fines on individuals or organizations that disrupt pipeline infrastructure — a common tactic used in environmental demonstrations. Legal observers warn the bill is so broad it could be used to criminalize nonviolent protest.
Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have flagged these measures as threats to constitutionally protected assembly and speech.
Why It Matters
This wave of legislation represents a coordinated effort to reframe peaceful protest as criminal conduct. It particularly targets movements that challenge state-aligned energy, military, and foreign policy priorities.
By increasing legal penalties and broadening the definition of “critical infrastructure disruption,” these bills expand executive and state power while chilling civic participation and dissent.
How It Contributes to the Drift
Authoritarian regimes often begin by criminalizing opposition under the guise of public safety or economic stability. These laws echo that pattern — portraying protesters as threats to national energy interests or public order, rather than as engaged citizens.
The use of both federal and state-level legislation to curtail First Amendment rights signals a coordinated attempt to weaken public opposition and normalize state-aligned control over civil activity.
Watcher Notes
This drift reflects a pattern of legislative escalation aimed at reclassifying peaceful protest as criminal activity. While anti-protest bills have appeared before, the concentrated surge following the 2025 inauguration — including federal legislation imposing prison time for disrupting energy infrastructure — suggests a coordinated attempt to suppress dissent through legal mechanisms. These efforts do not target violence or incitement, but rather strategic civic disruption, often tied to environmental and human rights movements. The trend mirrors authoritarian models where the law is reshaped to silence opposition without direct censorship.