The argument against protestors is DARVO

This weekend, cities around LA and the U.S. banded together to protect their neighbors and loved ones from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that have ramped up dramatically under Donald Trump’s orders. In the Hispanic community of Paramount, masked agents targeted a Home Depot and clothing stores to whisk away dozens of workers on the pretense that they are undocumented immigrants.

In response, protests that officials described as “peaceful” were met with police firing projectiles, launching smoke grenades, and flooding streets with tear gas. On Saturday, Trump took the historic step of mobilizing 2,000 National Guard troops to crush dissent.

The news stories and much of the mainstream discourse about this weekend has been defined by acts of violence attributed to protestors. But the violence started with masked men grabbing people off the streets and it has continued with masked men attacking anyone who tries to stop them.

Still, writers in The Atlantic like Tom Nichols and Conor Friedersdorf suggest that continuing to protest ICE would give Trump and his supporters the ammunition to escalate the violence and authoritarianism that has already come to define Trump’s second term, while protestors remaining peaceful or at home would cause Trump to lose public support. They’re reinforcing a failed argument that blames protestors and “leftists” for Trump’s popularity and the oppressive violence he’s escalating.

This argument and others like it rely on the logic of victim-blaming and DARVO, which is a well-worn trope in our national discourse. DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It’s a term I find myself reaching for almost daily to describe our cultural rhetoric and the consequences of it.

Dr. Jennifer Freyd first introduced the concept of DARVO in 1997 to describe how sexual offenders respond to efforts to hold them accountable. Abuse perpetrators will often flip outsiders’ perceptions of an allegation by claiming it isn’t true, undermining the credibility of their accuser, and then claiming to be the real victim. This has played out in recent high-profile cases involving celebrity women like Cassie, Amber Heard, Megan Thee Stallion, Blake Lively, and more.

I learned about DARVO through studying these cases and have since applied it to political conflicts beyond the theory’s original framework. Other feminist writers, academics, and journalists like Kylie Cheung and Dr. Nicole Bedera have used DARVO to understand the rhetoric of the Israel lobby in the U.S., while Freyd has written about Trump using DARVO in his tariffs policy and his own defense against sexual harassment.

Trump has used DARVO again to justify mobilizing the National Guard, referring to the unrest created by ICE and police as a “rebellion” against the U.S. that necessitates military intervention. In reality, he and his administration have launched federal attacks on civilians. When victims of these abuses of power respond, even just by legally bearing witness to them, the Trump administration frames their response as the inciting violence that forces the state to escalate even further.

By omitting or minimizing this crucial context and power imbalance, columnists and anyone with a public platform can aid the Trump administration in its DARVO strategy. Even people who purportedly disagree with what is happening may perpetuate Trump’s talking points. DARVO and victim-blaming rhetoric are so baked into the cultural script around violence that people often treat it as a fair, unbiased perspective, when it actually takes the side of oppressor.

ICE’s reign of terror through American neighborhoods has demanded a vocal, immediate response from witnesses. Agents have repeatedly seized the wrong people, including tourists and U.S. citizens, including children without their medication. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has shared reports of illegal conditions in ICE detainment facilities in Florida and Kansas. Detainees have been denied the right to legal counsel. And a significant percentage of them have no criminal record. That’s the tip of the iceberg in regards to the unconstitutional, unlawful conduct of the federal government and ICE. If we do nothing to document and stop it, we are complicit in it.

When people do try to document and stop it, including journalists, elected officials, and community leaders, police and feds have initiated violence and DARVO against them, too. Congresswoman LaMonica McIver was charged with assault while attempting to enter an ICE detainment facility in New Jersey. Labor union leader David Huerta was arrested in LA on Friday while union representatives said he was “peacefully observing” an ICE operation. Police also injured Huerta to the point of requiring hospitalization after he was arrested.

These attacks on politicians and organizers of color have been minimized and left out of the conversations about actions attributed to protestors, like vandalism, throwing bottles, setting off fireworks, and setting things on fire. A lot of the damage happens when police throw grenades, fire projectiles, and flood neighborhoods with gas, too. These so-called “less than lethal” weapons, which can still kill and maim, injured protestors as well as children and people nearby.

One of those “non-lethal” rounds hit photojournalist Nick Stern in the leg on Saturday, requiring emergency surgery today. He told The Guardian: “In my leg was what felt like a five centimeter hole with muscle hanging out of it and blood all down my leg.”

When police and military forces attack citizens—protestors, journalists, bystanders, or anyone else—the behavior of the victim is almost always scrutinized. Victims are held responsible for the violence committed against them. Victim-blaming is so normalized that we rush to frame violence this way as soon as we hear about it.

It was Trump, his administration, and ICE who initiated the violent unrest in LA and around the country right now. But the DARVO rhetoric and minimization of police and military violence are a centuries-long, bipartisan practice. That’s part of the reason why mainstream media too often reports through this bias while claiming to represent impartiality and objectivity. It’s why people who see themselves as opposition to Trump help bolster his narrative.

The truth is that Trump’s authoritarianism cannot be avoided or hid from until it’s over. The less pushback he gets, the further he will go. His supporters have not had their minds changed by seeing the consequences of his actions, watching millions of people gather for peaceful protests over the past six months, or hearing the principled opposition from the pundit class. And as Trump continues to ramp up the violence around the country, it won’t be the fault of the victims. The responsibility lies squarely with the oppressors.

Here are some links to citizen journalists and educational resources about what’s currently happening in LA:

• This starter pack on Bluesky features a bunch of independent journalists reporting live from the ground. I’m also a big fan of Chad Loder’s posts.

• Mariame Kaba’s work on police violence, abolition, and organizing.

• Dr. Freyd’s links to work and media about DARVO.

If you appreciated this piece, please consider a $5 subscription to fund my reader-supported work. Thank you for reading!