Cosplay Riots: All Costume, No Work

If you want immigration reform, you don’t get it by torching streets and calling it “justice.” You get it by doing the hard, boring work.

Introduction

I’m going to say what a lot of people are thinking and too many are afraid to say out loud: a big slice of the “uprising” energy we’ve watched since Donald Trump took office has been long on cosplay and short on substance.

And yes—before the usual chorus warms up—peaceful protest is American. That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about the riots. The vandalism. The intimidation. The freeway shutdowns. The “we’re the good guys so anything we do is justified” attitude. The mobs who smash, burn, and bait law enforcement, then demand we treat it as civic virtue.

Spare me the liberal crap and excuses.

If you want to argue immigration policy, argue it like an adult in a civilized country. If you want to change the law, use the tools a republic gives you. If you want to persuade normal people, stop acting like chaos is a moral credential.

Because it’s not.

What I mean by “cosplay”

Cosplay, in politics, is a harsh word for a simple idea: performance without substance. You dress up as something noble—activist, revolutionary, defender of the oppressed—without doing the boring, disciplined work that actually produces outcomes.

Real activism is unglamorous and repetitive:

• building coalitions that include people you don’t fully agree with
• drafting policy and arguing tradeoffs
• showing up to hearings, not just rallies
• filing lawsuits and dealing with inconvenient facts
• collecting signatures, registering voters, winning primaries
• using public records requests to force transparency
• raising money for legal defense and immigrant services, not just for banners and megaphones

Cosplay activism is adrenaline and optics:



• “direct action” that mostly wrecks property
• virtue-signaling as a lifestyle brand
• viral clips as the end goal
• outrage as identity
• moral confidence that never has to prove itself in a legislature, court, or election

Cosplay is cheap. Strategy is expensive.

And when cosplay tips into rioting, it becomes something worse than ineffective—it becomes corrosive. It turns political disagreement into intimidation, and it treats the public as collateral damage in someone else’s performance art.

That is not protest. That is pressure through disorder.

Riots don’t make your argument. They replace it.

Here’s the truth riot-cheerleaders don’t want to admit: when your “message” is a brick through a window, the brick becomes the message.

The moment a protest becomes a riot, five things happen fast:

1. People stop listening.
   Regular Americans—especially those not glued to politics—hear “riot” and immediately file you under “dangerous, unstable, not serious.”
2. The media turns it into a circus.
   The story becomes the flames, the arrests, the broken glass. Not your policy demands. Not your moral reasoning. The visuals eat your argument.
3. Politicians get a permission slip to escalate.
   Disorder invites force. Always has. Not because force is always right, but because governments exist to restore order. You are handing them the easiest rationale on earth.
4. Communities pay the bill.
   Small businesses, neighborhoods, working people commuting home—those are the people who eat the costs. Not the activists who showed up for a Saturday adrenaline hit and drove home.
5. Your side loses legitimacy for years.
   You don’t “raise awareness.” You raise resistance. You harden opposition. You become a cautionary tale.

This is not theoretical.

During anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles in June 2025, the situation escalated into clashes, vandalism, and vehicles set on fire, as reported by Reuters.  The federal response escalated right alongside it—National Guard deployment, bigger confrontation, bigger headlines.

Now ask the most basic question: what immigration reform did the burning cars produce?

None. What it did produce was predictable: more polarization, more “law and order” messaging, more justification for aggressive response, and more public fatigue.

Riots don’t move policy forward. They move politics toward backlash.

“ICE is doing raids” is not a magic permission slip for disorder

Let’s separate two things that get intentionally blurred:

• The right to protest immigration enforcement.
• The alleged right to turn cities into a demolition derby because you’re angry about immigration enforcement.

The first is legitimate. The second is nonsense.

If you believe enforcement is unjust, overly broad, or abusive, then the case for reform is accountability, transparency, and legal challenge—not chaos. And even in moments where there are real controversies, riots don’t become “understandable.”

They become more destructive.

Consider what happened in Minneapolis: after two U.S. citizens were killed in incidents involving federal agents, the issue exploded into national scrutiny and protest, and DHS leadership announced body-worn cameras for Homeland Security officers in the city.  That’s a real policy response tied to accountability pressure.

That’s what lawful pressure looks like: a controversy, public outrage, investigations, oversight demands, and policy changes that can be measured.

But even there—especially there—rioting is a self-own. If your argument is “these agencies need oversight and restraint,” then smashing things and threatening civilians is the fastest way to convince the public that the state needs more force, not less.

And here’s the part people forget: civil liberties don’t get protected by mob-rule. They get protected by law. Courts. Legislatures. Investigations. Oversight. The dull machinery of a functioning society.

If you claim to care about rights and due process, then act like you want due process to exist.

The “criminal arrests” claim: what’s true, what’s spun, and what still doesn’t justify riots

One of the most common defenses of aggressive enforcement is a simple claim: “They’re going after criminals.”

Sometimes that is true. In fact, DHS press releases have emphasized “worst of the worst” narratives and highlighted arrests involving serious offenses.

But adults have to separate press strategy from the full picture.

Independent reporting and analysis of available data complicates the “it’s basically all criminals” storyline:

• Fact-checking and data analysis by FactCheck.org, drawing on ICE arrest data obtained through the Deportation Data Project, reported an increase over time in the share of arrests involving people with no U.S. criminal record (no charges or convictions).
• Reporting by CBS News, citing internal DHS data, described a record-high ICE detainee population and noted that roughly 47% had criminal charges or convictions—meaning roughly half did not, by that measure.
• A fact-check by Poynter examined claims about violent-crime convictions and discussed how the share of violent convictions appears to be far smaller than broad rhetoric suggests in some data discussions.
• Analysis by Cato Institute (based on data it says it obtained) argues that a large share of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions and that violent convictions are a small fraction.

So what is the responsible conclusion?

1. Enforcement includes serious offenders.
2. It also includes people without criminal records, and “criminal” can mean a wide range of severity—from felonies to lesser offenses to immigration-related categories.
3. The public debate is polluted by slogans from both sides.

Now here’s the key point that should end the riot-apologist conversation:

Even if every single arrest were a violent felon, rioting still wouldn’t be justified.

Because riots don’t “argue.” They coerce. They intimidate. They punish the public. They don’t correct the system; they torch the social trust required to fix anything.

If your cause requires breaking society to “raise awareness,” your cause is weak.

The moral con: turning “illegal” into “sacred”

Another engine behind cosplay riots is a moral shortcut: flatten a complex, imperfect system into a sacred narrative that can’t be questioned.

In the real world, categories matter:

• someone with a violent felony conviction
• someone with a misdemeanor
• someone with no criminal record who overstayed a visa
• someone seeking asylum
• someone already under a removal order
• someone caught up in enforcement errors or sloppy procedure

These situations are not identical, legally or morally.

But cosplay politics hates distinctions because nuance doesn’t chant well. Nuance doesn’t trend. Nuance doesn’t give you a clean villain and a clean hero.

So the story becomes: “enforcement itself is evil.” Full stop.

And once you buy that premise, you can justify almost anything: harassment, intimidation, vandalism, even violence—because you’ve declared the other side morally illegitimate.

That’s not justice. That’s tribal permission.

You can believe immigration enforcement is too broad while still believing that laws exist for a reason. You can believe policy needs reform while still believing that civil society is worth preserving. You can be outraged while still choosing lawful means of protest.

That’s what being an adult looks like.

Cosplay riots create the very outcomes they claim to oppose

Here’s where the cosplay crowd really reveals itself: their tactics are politically self-defeating.

When riots break out, governments respond with more security, more surveillance, more deployments, and less tolerance. Not because every response is morally perfect—but because disorder forces a response. That is how states behave. That is how publics react. That is how history works.

Look at the public opinion reality from that June 2025 moment in Los Angeles: a YouGov poll found more adults disapproved than approved of the protests against ICE actions.  Another YouGov poll found more disapproval than approval of deploying Marines in response.  Translation: the public wasn’t buying the riot narrative—and they weren’t thrilled with heavy-handed responses either. They were sick of the whole circus.

And the “circus” has a cost. An Associated Press report citing the Congressional Budget Office put a price tag on federal troop deployments to multiple U.S. cities—hundreds of millions through December 2025, with projections over $1 billion if continued.

That’s real money. Real resources. Real escalation.

This is the hidden outcome of riot-culture: it accelerates the exact state-power expansion the “resistance” claims to fear.

And it gets worse. Increased enforcement often gets paired with expanded tools. For example, reporting by The Washington Post described a new ICE surveillance initiative and raised concerns about oversight and privatized enforcement.  Brookings commentary has similarly argued that enforcement expansion can outpace accountability and has discussed remedies and oversight concerns.

You know what makes oversight harder? Riot culture. It shifts the focus from the agency’s actions to the crowd’s actions. It turns policy critique into public safety crisis. It invites “we don’t have time for your civil-liberties talk” politics.

If you actually care about constraints on enforcement, riots are the worst possible tactic.

“But they’re desperate” is not an excuse for attacking your own society

Here’s the standard riot-excuse script:

• “They’re expressing pain.”
• “Property can be replaced.”
• “You’re tone-policing.”
• “If you condemn riots, you’re ignoring the real issue.”
• “They were provoked.”

No.

Adults are responsible for their actions.

The “property can be replaced” line is especially revealing. It’s usually said by people whose property wasn’t destroyed. It’s easy to moralize when someone else is paying for your catharsis. It’s easy to treat neighborhoods like disposable sets in your political movie when you’re not the one who has to live there after the camera crews leave.

And the “provoked” argument has limits, too. The entire reason we live in a society rather than a jungle is that we reject the idea that anger is a license to harm others.

If you can’t condemn rioting without adding two paragraphs of excuses, you’re not defending justice—you’re defending your team.

And again: spare me.

If you want change, here are legal and effective options (the stuff nobody wants to do)

This is the part cosplay activists hate. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s boring—and it requires competence.

If you believe immigration enforcement is too broad, too aggressive, or insufficiently accountable, here are tactics that actually matter:

1. Courts and litigation
   Support legal organizations that represent immigrants and challenge unlawful enforcement practices. Courts force evidence. Courts force procedure. Courts create precedents that last longer than your trending hashtag.
2. Oversight and transparency
   Push for enforceable accountability tools: body camera requirements, reporting mandates, independent review, clear use-of-force standards—especially in light of current body-camera debates and policy shifts after major controversies.
3. Legislative work
   If you want reform, you need statutes. That means lobbying, drafting proposals, building majorities, and dealing with compromises. Street chaos doesn’t substitute for legislation. It never has.
4. Data work and public records
   Use FOIA requests, track detention and arrest numbers, document patterns, and publish results responsibly. The system fears receipts more than it fears chanting.
5. Elections that matter
   Most people treat politics like a Super Bowl—show up once every four years and scream at the TV. That’s not how policy changes. Primaries shape the agenda. Local offices influence cooperation, funding, and oversight. If you want reform, win the positions that actually control policy levers.
6. Coalition building
   Hard truth: lasting change requires persuading people who are not already on your team. Riot culture does the opposite. It narrows your coalition to the loudest, angriest faction and repels everyone else.

If you want results, do the work. If you want a dopamine hit, cosplay in the streets.

A quick note on “fake protests” vs real grievances

Some protests are sincere. Some are peaceful. Some are motivated by real fear, real trauma, and real stories.

That doesn’t matter if you cross the line into rioting.

Sincerity doesn’t sanitize violence. Pain doesn’t erase responsibility. Anger doesn’t turn intimidation into virtue.

You can see this contrast in recent events: there have been arrests tied to sit-ins and demonstrations—like the Manhattan hotel protest covered by the Associated Press—where the act is civil disobedience rather than street destruction.  People can debate whether those protests are smart or misguided, but they’re categorically different from arson and vandalism. One aims to pressure institutions; the other punishes the public.

If your “protest” depends on wrecking things to feel meaningful, you’re not protesting—you’re acting out.

My bottom line

Protest all you want. Peacefully. Loudly. Relentlessly.

March. Chant. Organize. Sue. Vote. Lobby. Persuade.

But the moment you cross into rioting—arson, vandalism, intimidation, attacking people, destroying communities—you’re not a reformer. You’re a wrecking crew wearing a moral costume.

And here’s the hard truth: a lot of what we’ve seen since Trump took office has looked less like principled activism and more like cosplay—performance, identity, and adrenaline dressed up as civic duty.

Spare me the excuses. If you want change, act like someone capable of governing, not someone auditioning for a riot montage.

Why This Matters

A society that excuses riots as “activism” trains people to believe power comes from chaos, not persuasion. That corrodes everything: public trust, public safety, the legitimacy of peaceful protest, and the basic expectation that disagreements get settled through law. It also creates the political conditions for heavier crackdowns, expanded surveillance, and more aggressive enforcement—exactly the outcomes many protesters claim to fear. If you want durable reform, you don’t get it by torching your credibility. You get it by doing the unglamorous work that survives the news cycle.

References

Associated Press. (2026, January 28). Federal troop deployments to U.S. cities cost taxpayers $496M and counting.

Associated Press. (2026, January 28). Dozens of protesters arrested at hotel in Manhattan during sit-in over immigration crackdown.

Associated Press. (2026, February 2). Every Homeland Security officer in Minneapolis is now being issued a body-worn camera, Noem says.

Brookings Institution. (2026, January 26). ICE expansion has outpaced accountability. What are the remedies?

CBS News. (2026, January 16). ICE’s detainee population reaches new record high of 73,000.

Cato Institute. (2025, November 24). 5% of people detained by ICE have violent convictions, 73% no convictions.

Department of Homeland Security. (2026, January 20). DHS recaps the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens ICE took enforcement action during.

FactCheck.org. (2026, January 28). As ICE arrests increased, a higher portion had no U.S. criminal record.

Poynter. (2026, January 26). Kristi Noem said most immigrants in ICE detention are violent criminals. The data doesn’t support that.

Reuters. (2025, June 9). Los Angeles ICE protests as they happened: Clashes, cars burnt after Trump deploys National Guard.

Reuters. (2025, June 9). Highway patrol vehicle set on fire during LA anti-ICE protests (video).

The Washington Post. (2026, January 30). ICE launches nationwide program for covert surveillance of immigrants.

YouGov. (2025, June 9). Do you approve or disapprove of recent protests in Los Angeles against ICE actions?

YouGov. (2025, June 10). Do you approve or disapprove of deploying Marines to respond to protests over immigration enforcement?

Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are opinions of the author for educational and commentary purposes only. They are not statements of fact about any individual or organization, and should not be construed as legal, medical, or financial advice. References to public figures and institutions are based on publicly available sources cited in the article. Any resemblance beyond these references is coincidental.