Social media, online, and news commentary exploded following former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict on 34 felony counts in a New York court. Discussions reveal there is an overwhelming expression of anger, disbelief, and skepticism among the American people.

What Voters Are Saying

The most discussion activity appears to be among politically engaged adult Americans, with more representation from Trump's critics. This group celebrate the conviction and point out the irony of Trump's supporters attempting to impeach Biden when Trump himself was impeached twice during his presidency.

Trump supporters are vehement in their accusations of election tampering and a rigged jury. Many also double down on their belief that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. This shows a consistent pattern of distrust and skepticism about the legal and electoral process.

Other markers of outrage emerge economically, as Trump’s campaign raised $34.8 million in 24 hours. The rush of support also caused the WinRed donation website to crash. The unprecedented donations were exclusively from small-dollar donations, which range from $1 - $200.

Vitriol Against the Biden Administration

Trump’s supporters are turning the conversation to discredit Biden and his administration. They mention Biden’s impeachment—or lack thereof—as a primary grievance. Many use harsh words and phrases like "Joe Biden must be impeached now," "treason," and "destroying our country."

These voters also accuse Biden and his government of numerous scandals, including criminal behavior. A recurring theme reveals disapproval of Biden's past actions, with some referring to allegations of Biden using racial slurs and promoting segregation during his time in Congress. This group is capitalizing on Trump's guilty verdict to further their negative sentiments about Biden.

• Support for Joe Biden took a significant hit after Trump’s conviction on Thursday as many Americans accuse Democrats of weaponizing the justice system.

Another dominant theme in conversations shows people agreeing that, even though Trump was found guilty, he is and will continue receiving massive waves of support. Many are hopeful the scandalous news will bring attention to the nation's current political and social climate.

The overall sentiment of these trends is highly polarized. While Trump's critics remain largely critical and scathing in their commentary, his supporters show a mixture of outrage at his treatment, disbelief, defiance, and hope for a political reversal. Despite the verdict, the polarized sentiments suggest Trump's influence on the political discourse remains strong.

The second day of jury deliberations in former President Donald Trump’s trial in New York City brings the trial closer to an end. The case involves 34 charges of falsifying business records during the 2016 presidential election. Judge Juan Mercan has instructed the jury and, while they have yet to reach a verdict, Americans are watching the trial unfold with interest.

MIG Reports analysis studied recent online discussion and sentiment trends about the trial. Based on public posts, it seems many Americans – including legal experts – are struggling to gain a clear understanding of what the trial is about. State felony criminal charges of falsifying business records with respect to specific invoices, vouchers, and checks, on which the case pivots, are overly complex for many voters. None of the online discussion provides detailed explanations of these charges or the specifics of the case. Instead, conversation focuses on broader political narratives and accusations of corruption.

The lack of depth in discussion suggests people are less engaged with the actual content of the trial, and more reactive to media narratives about it. Most of the discussion around this trial revolves around three key points of contention.

Discussion Trends

Accusations of Corruption and Bias

Many voters mention their belief that the New York Trump trial is rife with corruption and political bias. For example, there are repeated references to perceived bias by Judge Juan Merchan. People believe he has been making unfair rulings and that he is acting corruptly. There are claims he is part of a wider conspiracy to politically prosecute Trump, with some suggesting the entire American justice system is now corrupted.

Trump's Guilt or Innocence

Two major narratives emerge with respect to Trump's guilt or innocence. Some are vehement that Trump is guilty, arguing the evidence is compelling. However, a large portion of observers suspect Trump is innocent, positioning him as the victim of a witch-hunt. The theme of Trump's innocence amid a corrupt system that is politically targeting him seems most prevalent.

Political Persecution

There are strong suggestions the trial is politically motivated and seeking to discredit or undermine Trump and the Republican Party. Those who discuss this believe Democrats have weaponized the justice system for their own purposes. They say Trump’s trial is a symptom of a broader social corruption and potentially threatening to any American citizen.

Sentiment Trends

Emotional Drivers

Many voters express anxiety and anger about perceived biases within the justice system. These individuals see Trump as being unjustly persecuted. They feel the charges brought against him are overly politicized.

Others voice disgust at what they perceive to be corruption within the judicial system. They assert that Judge Merchan and the prosecutors are not impartial and are engaging in egregious misconduct that should be investigated.

There is also anger and frustration from those who insist Trump is guilty of the charges brought against him. They express their faith and hope in the justice system along with their desire for a conviction.

Demographic Patterns

There are no specific geographic patterns, which suggests national interest in the case is relatively consistent. However, political alignment plays an important role. Those who support Trump — likely staunch Republicans and MAGA voters — demonstrate a high level of skepticism and discontent with the trial. Those who support the trial proceedings are likely to be Democrats or anti-Trump voters.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, most voters seem to lean more towards negative reactions fueled by fear of corruption, perceived bias, and lack of trust in the legal framework. Any positive sentiments are submerged in the negative discourse, but mostly revolve around faith in the justice system and the prospect of Trump's conviction.

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik filed a complaint calling for a conflict-of-interest investigation of Judge Merchan. She cites potential bias in Merchan’s history as a Democrat donor and his daughter’s financial interests.

Many who agree with Stefanik argue the judge's conduct clearly favors the prosecution and he has shown the appearance of prejudging the case before all the evidence was heard. Legal experts from across the political spectrum allege biases which put the fairness of the trial in question.

🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court System related to the “random” assignment of Acting Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, a Biden donor whose daughter is fundraising millions off his unprecedented work, to criminal cases… pic.twitter.com/OsBjFc3qeI

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) May 28, 2024

Concerns Over Merchan’s Bias

Many observers, although conservatives are most vocal, express concern over payments made to Loren Merchan, Judge Merchan’s daughter. There are allegations she has received significant amounts of money from prominent Democrats.

Critics argue these monetary transactions indicate a potential bias on the part of Judge Merchan, suggesting he may not be capable of conducting a fair trial. Others argue Merchan’s daughter is likely to financially profit in the case of a Trump conviction. This, they say, is an issue – even if it’s only a perception of compromised incentives.

Democrats tend to argue that Merchan has maintained a neutral stance in the trial. They view him as fair, despite the politically charged nature of the case. They argue Merchan's conduct upholds the integrity of the judicial process and emphasizes that the law should be applied equally to all.

Legal experts on the left insist Judge Merchan's conduct is consistent with judicial norms and ethical standards. This view is starkly and vehemently opposed by experts who present the irregularities of Merchan’s rulings as highly alarming and outside of acceptable judicial practice.

Those who support Stefanik’s misconduct filing call for more complaints against the judge. They express frustration at what they perceive as inaction by Republicans to fight against lawfare by Democrats.

• Sentiment towards Donald Trump is similar overall to topics specifically mentioning his legal troubles. This may suggest most voters are not deeply swayed by the cases against him.

Liberal Hysterics Against Republicans

Mainstream opinions on Elise Stefanik's ethics complaint against Judge Juan Merchan appear to be overwhelmingly negative. This is especially true among liberal Democrats and mainstream media figures.

Liberals accuse Stefanik of prioritizing the interests of former President Trump over the needs of the American people. They view Stefanik's ethics complaint as an extension of her loyalty to Trump rather than as a duty to uphold law and order. Democrats who hope for a Trump conviction use phrases like “hypocrite” and “treacherous” against Stefanik and other Republicans.

There are reverse accusations that Stefanik and Republicans are the ones using lawfare to achieve their political ends. Some bring up Trump and others’ failure to comply with subpoenas as a broader disregard for the rule of law. They use this as an argument against the supposed “law and order” ethos of the Republican Party.

Democrats argue Stefanik is attempting to thwart the legal process, deflecting from accusations against Judge Merchan and other figures who are perceived to be politicized like Letitia James, Engoron, and Fani Willis.

• Despite widespread liberal criticism, Stefanik’s national approval has remained steady, even increasing by one point after filing her ethics complaint.

Recent reporting that sex offenders are being employed and housed in hotels with unaccompanied migrant children has sparked significant controversy and concern about a program already rampant with child trafficking.

MIG Reports analysis reveals an intersection of concern over immigration, child welfare, and public safety. This issue is particularly sensitive, given the heightened scrutiny around the treatment and care of vulnerable populations such as unaccompanied minors.

Americans Agree Child Safety is Crucial

The general sentiment on this issue is overwhelmingly negative. Concerns about the safety and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children are prominent. And reports of children exposed to registered sex offenders exacerbates fears of abuse and exploitation. Public outrage is pronounced, with calls for immediate reforms and stricter oversight of facilities housing unaccompanied minors.

Media Coverage

The topic has garnered media attention but has not received wall-to-wall coverage. Reports tend to spike following investigations or statements from public officials and advocacy groups. Mainstream media and social media platforms have been instrumental in amplifying the issue, often framing it within the broader context of immigration policies and government accountability.

Political Reactions

Political figures have responded with sharp criticisms and calls for action. There is bipartisan condemnation, though framing and blame often diverges along party lines. Conservative voices emphasize the need for stricter immigration controls and better vetting processes. Progressive voices focus on systemic failures and the need for comprehensive child protection measures.

Social Media Trends

Social media platforms have generated a robust conversation, with hashtags like #ProtectOurChildren and #ChildSafety gaining traction. Americans express a mix of indignation, fear, and demands for accountability. The discourse often overlaps with immigration debates, reflecting broader anxieties about border security and governmental oversight.

Voter Group Reactions to Government Failures

Parents and Families

Sentiment is highly negative for families. Parents are particularly alarmed by the potential risks posed to children. This demographic is likely to demand stringent background checks and reforms to ensure children's safety. Many are calling for increased advocacy and support for policies aimed at protecting children in institutional care.

Immigrant Communities

Voter sentiment is mixed among immigrants. While there is concern for the safety of children, immigrant communities might also fear increased stigmatization and punitive measures which could affect their own status and treatment.

This group seems to want child protection along with immigrant rights, emphasizing humane and safe treatment for all.

Public Safety Advocates

Sentiment is strongly negative with safety advocates. This group is likely to push for immediate actions and reforms to prevent similar situations. They promote advocacy for stricter regulations and oversight of facilities housing vulnerable populations.

Political Partisans

Conservatives are likely to argue for more restrictive immigration policies and enhanced security measures. Progressives may focus on systemic failures and advocate for comprehensive reforms in child protection and immigration policies.

Across the political aisle, there is increasing polarization, with each side using the issue to bolster their respective policy agendas.

General Public

Sentiment is generally negative among most Americans, driven by concerns for child safety and governmental accountability. There is heightened public scrutiny of governmental and institutional practices, along with potential shifts in public opinion towards more protective measures for children.

MIG Reports analysis of public discourse about violent crime reveals several patterns, especially when understood through traditional media. This analysis examines various perspectives on violent crime, with a specific focus on prevalent themes, the influence of political affiliations, and observable demographic patterns.

Blame on Political Leadership and Policies

Many comments express frustration and anger towards political leaders such as Governors Gavin Newsom (California), Kathy Hochul (New York), and Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan). These leaders are often blamed for rising crime rates due to perceived lenient policies and failure to effectively prosecute crimes.

Voters also criticize District Attorneys and Attorneys General for allegedly not prosecuting crimes adequately. Americans often view failure to enforce rule of law as contributing to an increase in violent crime. Some more right leaning voters also cite prosecutions against Trump in places like New York and Georgia as hypocritical as DAs regularly fail to prosecute lower profile crimes.

Perception of Media Bias

There is a common sentiment that mainstream media outlets are ignoring or underreporting violent crimes, particularly when these incidents do not fit certain narratives.

Fox News is frequently mentioned as an outlet that some believe would cover these issues more comprehensively.

Criticism of Criminal Justice Reforms

Some voters hold strong opposition to criminal justice reforms, suggesting these reforms lead to the release of individuals who then commit more crimes.

The perception that violent criminals are not being kept in prison for long enough is also prevalent.

A segment of the discourse emphasizes the role of socioeconomic factors, such as homelessness, poverty, and housing issues, in contributing to violent crime. There are calls for addressing root causes of crime through initiatives like housing first policies and regulating corporate practices.

Some discussions highlight the issue of police brutality and the militarization of law enforcement as factors that exacerbate violence. There are accusations of systemic issues and the need for broader reforms to address police violence and its impact on communities.

Demographic Patterns

Conservative and right leaning voters tend to blame Democratic leaders for rising crime rates and perceive media bias against their viewpoints. This group also points out that rising crime in blue cities and states impacts the rest of the country, causing things like migration to red areas and rising car insurance rates because of increased car theft.

Conversely, individuals with more liberal or left-leaning perspectives focus on systemic issues such as police brutality and socioeconomic inequality as root causes of violent crime.

The discussion is heavily centered around major states like California and New York, which are often seen as representative of broader national trends. Urban areas, particularly cities known for their Democratic leadership, are frequently mentioned as hotspots for violent crime.

There is a noticeable divide in how different socioeconomic groups perceive the causes and solutions to violent crime. Those experiencing economic hardship are more likely to emphasize the need for social reforms and economic support.

Middle and upper-middle-class individuals tend to focus on law and order, advocating for stricter enforcement and longer sentences for criminals.

Online conversations around Boeing, its CEO, two dead whistleblowers, and the brand image of Boeing are highly negative and critical. This negativity stems from multiple issues the company has been facing, including alleged manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX, the death of two whistleblowers under mysterious circumstances, and overall concerns about the company's focus on profits over safety.

• Public sentiment toward Boeing seems to be dropping significantly, falling from around 50% just over a week ago to 39% today.
• Sentiment seems to decline with increased conversation about airline safety and Boeing aircraft.

Suspicious Whistleblower Deaths

Whistleblower Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, made allegations about willful ignorance of manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX. Several weeks after another whistleblower John Barnett’s suspicious death, Dean was also reported dead, sparking outrage and suspicion.

Many Americans surmise Boeing is involved in both Barnett and Dean’s deaths. Some even accuse the company of behaving like a mob and having their "own hitmen lined up." There is a growing belief in the potential for corporate cover-ups and conspiracy theories.

People frequently discuss whether Boeing has hired professional assassins to eliminate whistleblowers, although these claims appear to be speculative and lack direct evidence.

Increased Fear of Flying

Safety has been the most prevalent issue in discussions about Boeing. Many planes, particularly the 737 Max, have been cited for various safety issues, including two fatal accidents in recent years. Stories of malfunctions leading to crashes, losses, and passenger danger are on the rise.

Ongoing safety issues have led some people to voice concerns about boarding Boeing planes and the company's commitment to safety. Some voters have even suggested the company be nationalized to ensure better safety standards.

The number of Americans who say they feel concerned about the safety of Boeing's planes seems to be increasing. Some say they would not want to fly with Boeing due to their perceived negligence and focus on profits over safety. There are also voices advising others not to work for Boeing.

Many people also call for Boeing to be held accountable for its safety issues. They demand transparency from the company and express the need for regulatory bodies like the FAA to step in and ensure safety standards are upheld.

Critiques of Boeing’s Business Practices

There is also criticism of Boeing's relationship with its employees and suppliers, and general corporate practices. One commenter mentions a cage full of defective parts in a non-union shop in South Carolina, implying the company is cutting corners on quality and safety.

The search for a new Boeing CEO after Dave Calhoun stepped down is also met with sarcasm. Some are saying the right choice should, "Restore faith that the company cares whether your plane falls out of the sky."

Furthermore, there is talk suggesting Boeing's safety issues may be a result of its focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Some people believe, along with general negligence in quality control, Boeing is prioritizing identity politics over passenger safety.

There are also conversations about Boeing's financial performance, with Americans discussing its stock price and financial results. Some express concern about the company's future, fearing the implications of air travel becoming increasingly unsafe.

Overall, conversations around Boeing and its brand value are highly critical and negative. Most people express distrust and dissatisfaction with the company's practices and leadership. This seems to be harming Boeing's brand image and customer trust going forward.

A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.

The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.

SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.

Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.

The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.

• National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
• Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.

Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight

Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.

Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.

Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.

Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government

The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.

Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.

Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.

Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized

In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.

Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.

Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.

There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.

MIG Reports data has identified a significant amount of dissatisfaction and frustration among Americans regarding cyberattacks and perceived failures of homeland security. Many of these feelings result from recent events that users suspect to be cyberattacks, which they blame on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas.

Some are calling for Mayorkas to resign, indicating dissatisfaction with his handling of security issues. There is a belief that DHS is not doing enough to prevent cyberattacks and protect American citizens. These sentiments are fueled by the perceived ineffectiveness and alleged corruption within the department.

Discussions have been increasing with a rising number of disastrous incidents on U.S. infrastructure, with many skeptical of reasons why. These events include things like the Baltimore Bridge, weather radar outages, and 911 outages. As foreign conflicts expand in countries like Russia and Iran, Americans are more worried they will never find the truth about responsible actors.

Anger is also directed at the government at large, with some voters accusing it of being compromised by foreign entities. They believe foreign adversaries have manipulated the government to their advantage, leading to a lack of accountability for cyberattacks.

Many people are apprehensive about the possibility of future attacks. There is a sense that the current government and security departments are not adequately prepared or competent to handle and prevent such incidents. As a result, there is a call for more stringent security measures and more robust responses to cyber threats.

There's also a level of anxiety about how cyberattacks could impact daily life, from increasing costs to potentially disrupting essential services. Some speculate about the potential for cyberattacks to escalate into physical conflict or even war, citing the mutual hostility between certain nations.

Others argue that hostile foreign adversaries could exploit American communications and cyber infrastructure to carry out attacks. However, there are also concerns about domestic threats, with some users accusing certain politicians and political groups of being "domestic terrorists."

Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.

Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.

• Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
• In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
• Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.

Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet

A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.

I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 16, 2024

Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.

This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.

There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.

Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.

Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.

Law Enforcement Response in Florida

There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.

Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.

Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.

Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California

Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.

There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.

Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.