Blog Series: "The First Amendment in 2025: Freedoms Under Pressure"

Part IV: The Right to Protest in a Time of Pushback: Assembly Freedoms in 2025

The right to gather, march, and speak out in public is one of the clearest and most powerful freedoms in the First Amendment. It protects our ability to assemble peacefully and demand change, whether that means calling for justice, defending rights, or simply being heard.

In 2025, this freedom is under unprecedented pressure. As political tensions grow and protests become flashpoints for conflict, new laws and enforcement tactics are testing the limits of the First Amendment. Even more alarming, not everyone is being treated equally under these rules, and federal power is being used in ways that bypass state authority.

This is not just about policy. It is about whether ordinary people can still come together and challenge authority without fear of punishment, surveillance, or violence.

🚨 Protest Crackdowns, Government Overreach, and Military Force

Across the U.S., the right to protest is becoming more legally and physically dangerous. States are passing laws that increase penalties for blocking roads, require expensive permits, and expand police authority to disperse crowds even when they remain peaceful.

In recent months, the federal government has deployed the National Guard and other military forces into states during protests, even when governors did not request them. This direct override of state authority has escalated tensions and blurred the line between civilian law enforcement and military power. Civil liberties groups warn this not only risks violence, but also sets a dangerous precedent for using federal troops to control political dissent.

In Texas, the situation is especially alarming. The state has passed aggressively gerrymandered voting maps that dilute the political power of communities of color. When activists have organized protests against these maps—particularly in Austin and Houston—they have faced rapid police crackdowns, mass arrests, and heavy fines. These targeted actions make it clear that certain protests, especially those challenging the political status quo, are met with harsher force.

One of the most controversial agendas, Project 2025, proposes measures that critics say could further expand federal control over protests, restrict press access, and increase surveillance on demonstrators. The result could be a chilling effect that stops protests before they begin.

🧠 Why it matters: If the right to protest can be suppressed by military force, federal intervention, or targeted crackdowns against political opposition, then public dissent becomes a privilege granted by those in power, not a constitutional guarantee.

🧑‍⚖️ Policing Protest and Journalists

Civil rights advocates are increasingly alarmed by the targeting of journalists and legal observers at protests. Reporters have been detained, pepper-sprayed, and had their equipment seized, even while clearly marked as press.

Although these actions often violate constitutional protections, they still shape public perception and erode the legal safeguards that protect free reporting. When the press is silenced or intimidated, the public loses its ability to see how protests are really handled.

🧠 Why it matters: If journalists cannot safely document protests, the truth about how power responds to dissent will disappear, and with it, the public’s ability to hold leaders accountable.

🧠 Surveillance, Facial Recognition, and Chilling Effects

Law enforcement agencies across the country are using facial recognition, license plate readers, and social media monitoring to track people attending public gatherings.

While these tools are justified as public safety measures, they create a surveillance state where every protester is a potential target. This deters many people from participating, especially those from marginalized communities who already face disproportionate policing.

🧠 Why it matters: A democracy cannot survive if its citizens are too afraid to exercise their rights. The silent streets that follow mass surveillance are not signs of peace, they are signs of fear.

🗳️ Political Speech, Voting Rights, and Assembly

The right to petition the government and engage in political life is closely tied to assembly rights. In 2025, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could erase limits on how much political parties can coordinate with candidates.

Meanwhile, states like Texas are actively reshaping voting maps to entrench political control. These maps make it harder for certain communities to elect representatives who reflect their interests. When people protest these moves, they are often met with immediate law enforcement action, which discourages further public resistance.

This would dramatically expand the influence of wealthy donors while drowning out grassroots movements that rely on collective organizing.

🧠 Why it matters: If political speech is determined by wealth and gerrymandered power structures, then the marketplace of ideas becomes a monopoly, and assembly rights become meaningless.

The Bigger Picture: Power, Protest, and Public Space

Freedom of assembly is about more than marches or rallies. It is about physically claiming a place in the democratic process and making leaders face the people they serve.

When these gatherings are restricted, whether by local laws, federal troops, or intimidation, the balance of power shifts behind closed doors.

The First Amendment states that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is guaranteed. If we allow that right to be eroded by force, surveillance, or selective enforcement, we will lose one of the last tools that keeps power in the hands of the people.

📝 Coming Up Next in the Series

Speaking Truth to Power: Petitioning and Political Participation in a Changing Democracy

In our final post on the First Amendment’s five freedoms, we will examine the right to petition the government. From grassroots activism to digital campaigns, from powerful lobbyists to citizen-led petitions, we will explore how this freedom is being reshaped in 2025, and ask whether the average American’s voice still stands a chance against concentrated political influence.