The Manhattan Institute Helped Kill DEI. Now It's Coming for Protests

The Evolution of a Think Tank's Agenda

As I reviewed the extensive documentation surrounding the Manhattan Institute's latest legislative initiatives, one thing became clear: this organization has long been at the forefront of redefining legal boundaries to align with right-wing ideological priorities. From its founding in 1978 by former CIA director William Casey, the institute has consistently advocated for hardline policies that prioritize order and stability over civil liberties. The shift from targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to now criminalizing protest behavior represents a calculated evolution in their strategy—one that leverages the fear of disruption to justify sweeping legal changes.

Reclassifying Protest as Terrorism

The core argument put forth by the Manhattan Institute is that what it terms "civil terrorism" can be used to describe nonviolent acts of protest when committed in groups. This reclassification transforms minor offenses such as vandalism, road blocking, or trespassing during demonstrations into felony crimes with prison sentences up to 18 months. The idea is not only to escalate the consequences for those engaging in lawful protest but also to create a legal framework that stigmatizes collective action itself.

"Today's left-wing agitators deploy random acts of lawlessness designed to inconvenience and disrupt as many civilians as possible, hoping to pressure them to get the government to change course. This tactic is reasonably described as a form of terrorism, though the activists aren't murderous like al-Qaida or Hamas—they don't use guns, bombs, or threats of unpredictable bloodshed." – Tal Fortgang

This perspective was articulated by Tal Fortgang, a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a recent graduate from New York University Law School. Fortgang's writings have been instrumental in shaping this narrative, particularly in his February 2025 Wall Street Journal op-ed that first introduced the concept of civil terrorism. His latest piece in City Journal further develops this theory by linking protest activity with foreign influence, suggesting a broader national security threat.

Legislative Campaign in Utah and Arizona

The push for these policies has taken tangible form through state-level legislation. In Utah, the bill HB 331 was passed with minimal opposition and signed into law on March 24. It not only increases penalties for protest-related crimes but also prohibits civilians from wearing masks during demonstrations—a provision that has drawn criticism from civil rights advocates.

In Arizona, the Manhattan Institute's model legislation is under consideration in the state Senate following a 31-21 vote in the lower chamber. Governor Katie Hobbs had previously vetoed a similar bill, but now there appears to be renewed momentum for these restrictive measures. The Arizona legislature has a history of passing laws that target protest activities, especially those involving immigrant rights and racial justice issues.

Legal Precedents and Constitutional Concerns

These proposed laws raise serious constitutional questions regarding First Amendment protections for freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. The argument that civil disobedience should be treated like terrorism ignores the fundamental principle that peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic participation. Moreover, the use of vague terms like "civil terrorism" lacks clarity and could lead to overbroad enforcement that disproportionately affects marginalized communities.

As Darrell Hill, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, noted, these laws are part of a broader pattern of targeting protest activities based on political viewpoint. The fear is that this approach will chill dissent and undermine public discourse by creating legal obstacles to legitimate activism.

The Role of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Recent history provides a cautionary tale about how these types of laws can be misused. During the 2020 protests over George Floyd's murder, prosecutors in both Arizona and Utah charged demonstrators with gang-related crimes using misleading evidence. In one case, prosecutors falsely claimed that anti-police brutality activists were part of an organized street gang called ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), leading to charges that were ultimately dismissed and the lead prosecutor facing disciplinary action.

This episode demonstrates how easily laws can be weaponized to silence dissent. When legal frameworks are shaped by ideological bias rather than objective justice, they become tools of political control rather than instruments of public safety.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The Manhattan Institute's campaign to redefine protest as terrorism reflects a deeper concern about the erosion of democratic norms in the United States. While maintaining order is essential for a functioning society, it should not come at the expense of fundamental rights. As we continue to examine these developments, my focus remains on documenting how these shifts impact civil liberties and ensuring that public discourse remains informed and grounded in constitutional principles.

For now, the debate over civil terrorism legislation continues to unfold across state legislatures. What remains certain is that these efforts represent a significant challenge to the core tenets of American democracy—and one that demands careful scrutiny and active resistance from those committed to protecting free expression.