Column alleges left wages domestic-terror campaign against Trump presidency

A New York Post column argues that the American left has waged a sustained domestic-terror campaign against the Trump presidency, describing a pattern of violence intended to thwart policy goals and create a climate of fear. The author contends that this violence has been ongoing since the new administration took office, beginning with what he characterizes as a shift in political mood and culminating in a series of targeted acts aimed at high-profile lines of policy and infrastructure. The piece emphasizes that, while the incidents may appear episodic or isolated, they form a throughline of political violence designed to influence national decision-making rather than mere protest.

The column details a sequence of episodes tied to anti-Trump objectives, starting with attacks on electric-vehicle initiatives and federal enforcement operations. It describes arson, vandalism, and other forms of property damage directed at Tesla dealerships and charging stations, accompanied by shootings and Molotov-cocktail incidents. The author classes these actions as terrorism in a technical sense—violence undertaken to advance political or social aims—though he acknowledges the scale is not comparable to extremist campaigns in other eras. In parallel, the piece cites assaults surrounding Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, including riots and incendiary acts, as evidence of a broader anti-government posture from some protest movements.

In a July incident near Dallas, a group wearing black, militarized attire conducted a provocative act at an ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas. Reportedly, participants used fireworks and graffiti to lure officers outside the facility, with one attacker hiding in the woods firing on a responding officer and another firing more than 20 rounds at correctional staff who had strayed from the building. Several assailants reportedly wore body armor and carried two-way radios, and the operation was described as emanating from a Dallas-area anti-fascist network. Less than a week later, authorities say an armed man attempted to breach a Border Patrol annex in McAllen, Texas, before being shot dead by law enforcement. The alleged perpetrators in these episodes are described as distinct individuals with divergent motives, complicating any simple, centralized command-and-control explanation.

The author links the intensity of anti-Tesla and anti-ICE actions to broader political currents. He notes that a libertarian billionaire’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce and foreign aid helped precipitate the anti-Tesla wave, while federal immigration enforcement actions contributed to the anti-ICE wave. Taken together, the incidents are presented as evidence of a broader pattern in which politically motivated actors use violence to disrupt policy and signal resistance to the administration’s agenda. The piece argues that the violence is not directed from a single source and that participants do not appear to know one another, which the author suggests makes stopping them difficult without broader political and social acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency and his goals.

The column asserts that Democratic officials and progressive commentators have, in the author’s view, amplified a sense of existential crisis around Trump’s presidency through apocalyptic rhetoric. It contends that such rhetoric, paired with peaceful protests and civil disobedience, created a permissive atmosphere for more extremist actions at the periphery. The author asks readers to compare current coverage with how the press would treat a hypothetical scenario in which a Kamala Harris presidency faced similar attacks on private businesses, immigration centers, or political supporters, arguing there would be a heightened national emergency response from the media and public officials. The piece references a maxim attributed to Abraham Lincoln about the dangers of threatening letters as a reminder of how fear can become normalized in national life.

The piece closes by suggesting that acknowledging Trump’s legitimacy, while vigorously opposing his policies, could be a practical step toward reducing violence. It argues that the press and political leadership have a responsibility to distinguish protest from violence and to avoid downplaying threats that could be exploited by agitators. The author also cautions that without broad societal recognition of the president’s political project, the country risks slipping into a state of heightened, unresolved conflict. The article ends with a call for measured, nonviolent political engagement and a reframing of public discourse to reduce the risk of further violence while still contesting policy on the merits.