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

From DEI to Demonstrations: The Manhattan Institute's Next Battlefield

The Manhattan Institute, one of the most influential right-wing think tanks in the United States, has spent years quietly shaping the legal and cultural landscape of American public life. After playing a central role in the dramatic rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across universities, corporations, and federal agencies, the organization has set its sights on a new target: the right to protest. Through a coordinated legislative and rhetorical campaign, the Manhattan Institute is actively advancing the concept of "civil terrorism" — a legal framework designed to dramatically increase penalties for minor crimes committed in the context of constitutionally protected demonstrations.

What Is "Civil Terrorism" and Why Does It Matter?

The term "civil terrorism" may sound extreme, but that is precisely the point. Proponents of the framework argue that protesters who commit even minor infractions — blocking traffic, trespassing on public property, or participating in disruptive demonstrations — should face enhanced criminal penalties when those actions occur alongside political expression. Critics, however, warn that this framing deliberately conflates low-level civil disobedience with genuine acts of violence or terrorism, and that doing so poses a serious threat to the First Amendment.

Legal scholars across the political spectrum have raised alarms about the implications of attaching "terrorism" labels to protest activity. When minor infractions are reframed as acts of terrorism, prosecutors gain access to a dramatically expanded toolkit — longer sentences, harsher bail conditions, and the social stigma that comes with being labeled a terrorist. The chilling effect on free speech and peaceful assembly could be profound and long-lasting.

The Manhattan Institute's Proven Playbook

To understand how seriously to take this new push, it helps to look at what the Manhattan Institute has already accomplished. The think tank was instrumental in popularizing the intellectual arguments that laid the groundwork for the anti-DEI movement. Through white papers, op-eds, and the cultivation of key legal and political allies, the organization helped shift the national conversation on diversity programs from mainstream acceptance to widespread legislative and judicial challenge.

That effort culminated in a series of decisive victories: the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, executive orders dismantling DEI offices across the federal government, and a wave of state-level legislation restricting diversity programs in public institutions. The Manhattan Institute did not accomplish this overnight — it was the result of years of patient, strategic advocacy that built coalitions, shaped public opinion, and ultimately influenced courts and lawmakers.

The think tank appears to be following a similar playbook with protest legislation. By popularizing the language of "civil terrorism," the institute is laying the intellectual groundwork for a new generation of laws that could fundamentally alter what it means to exercise the right to protest in America.

Targeting the Left While Claiming Neutrality

Supporters of the civil terrorism framework often insist that it applies equally to all forms of disruptive protest, regardless of political affiliation. But a closer look at the timing and context of these proposals tells a different story. The push for stricter protest penalties accelerated notably in the wake of Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020 and pro-Palestinian campus protests in 2023 and 2024 — movements overwhelmingly associated with progressive causes.

Meanwhile, there has been comparatively little momentum from the same quarters for enhanced penalties targeting right-wing demonstrations that have also resulted in property damage or disruption. This asymmetry has led many civil liberties advocates to argue that the civil terrorism framework is not a neutral legal tool but a politically targeted one — designed to suppress dissent from specific communities and movements.

First Amendment Concerns and the Broader Threat to Civil Liberties

At the heart of the debate is a fundamental question: can a democratic society maintain meaningful free speech and assembly rights if the legal consequences of participating in a protest are severe enough to deter most people from doing so? The First Amendment protects not only speech itself but also the conditions that make meaningful speech possible — including the ability to gather publicly, make noise, disrupt routine, and demand attention.

Historically, many of America's most celebrated social movements — the civil rights marches of the 1960s, the labor protests of the early 20th century, the suffragette demonstrations of the 1910s — involved participants who broke laws or disrupted public order in minor ways as part of their advocacy. Under a civil terrorism framework, many of those iconic acts of conscience could have resulted in terrorism-enhanced charges and decades in prison.

What Comes Next

The Manhattan Institute's influence on American policy has proven substantial and durable. Dismissing its civil terrorism push as fringe or unlikely to succeed would be a mistake, given the organization's track record. Already, several Republican-led states have introduced or passed legislation that increases penalties for protest-related offenses, and federal proposals along similar lines have found allies in Congress.

Civil liberties organizations including the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and numerous state-level advocacy groups are mobilizing to counter these efforts. Legal challenges are expected to follow any significant legislation. But as the DEI battle demonstrated, by the time court challenges mature, the political and cultural damage can already be done.

Conclusion: A Pattern Worth Watching

The Manhattan Institute's pivot from dismantling DEI to targeting protest rights is not a coincidence — it reflects a coherent long-term strategy to reshape American civic life in ways that reduce the institutional and legal power of progressive social movements. Whether one agrees with the institute's goals or not, the pattern demands serious attention. The tools of intellectual advocacy, legislative influence, and strategic litigation have already proven capable of transforming American law once. There is little reason to believe they cannot do so again.