Under Cover of War

War abroad changed the terms of dissent at home

The February 28 strikes followed the June 2025 Twelve-Day War, during which the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites. In both periods, officials presented military action as a response to grave national-security threats. Inside the United States, that security framework extended beyond military policy to policing, immigration enforcement, and public warnings about foreign influence. (UK House of Commons Library)

Opposition to the war was broad and constitutionally protected. Demonstrations took place in cities across the country, and members of Congress debated whether the president had acted without the authorization required by the War Powers Resolution. Arrests occurred when some demonstrators moved from protest into civil disobedience by occupying government space, disrupting a hearing, or blocking traffic.

That distinction matters. The First Amendment protects opposition to war; it does not provide immunity from generally applicable rules governing where demonstrations may occur. The civil-liberties question is whether those rules are applied neutrally, whether force and charges are proportionate, and whether national-security claims are used to treat dissent itself as evidence of disloyalty.

Public demonstrations can fall within foreign-agent law only when people act at the direction or control of a foreign principal. Agreement with another government is not agency.

NPPC analysis of the Justice Department's September 16, 2026 warning

From the street to the Capitol

On April 13, hundreds of demonstrators led by Jewish Voice for Peace attempted to hold a sit-in at the Manhattan offices of Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Security blocked entry. Protesters then stopped traffic on Third Avenue while calling for the senators to oppose a proposed sale of more than $600 million in bombs to Israel and the widening U.S.–Israeli war with Iran. Police arrested 90 people and transported them from the scene on buses. Those detained included Chelsea Manning, actor Hari Nef, and New York City Council Member Alexa Avilés. (Associated Press)

One week later, veterans, military family members, and supporters entered the Cannon House Office Building and gathered in its rotunda. They held red tulips for Iranian civilians killed by U.S. strikes, conducted a flag-folding ceremony for American service members killed in the war, and demanded a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson. Capitol Police arrested 66 people; some initial reports described at least 62. The coalition included About Face, Veterans for Peace, Common Defense, the Center on Conscience and War, and Military Families Speak Out. (public-radio report; Democracy Now)

These were planned civil-disobedience actions in places where officials said the conduct violated traffic or Capitol demonstration rules. That fact should remain in the record alongside the protesters' political purpose. A serious account neither erases the asserted legal basis for arrest nor pretends that the choice to arrest dozens of people protesting an ongoing war is politically meaningless.

An antiwar interruption became an assault case

On March 4, Brian C. McGinnis interrupted a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to denounce the military campaign in Iran. Capitol Police immediately moved to remove him. Video showed a struggle at the doorway; police said McGinnis resisted, fought officers, and trapped his arm while trying to force his way back into the room. He was arrested on three assault counts as well as resisting arrest and unlawful demonstration. McGinnis and three officers were treated for injuries. (Associated Press)

McGinnis's case cannot be described as a simple arrest for speech: police alleged physical resistance and assault. It nevertheless illustrates how quickly a political interruption can produce serious criminal exposure. The underlying charges, the available video, the officers' account, and McGinnis's antiwar purpose all belong in any assessment of the case.

Nationality became a wartime enforcement category

The largest body of Iran-war-related custody in the United States did not arise from protest. It came through immigration enforcement. Data obtained from Immigration and Customs Enforcement showed a sharp surge after the June 2025 bombing campaign: ICE arrested roughly 300 Iranian nationals in June and July 2025. A later disclosure counted at least 577 Iranian nationals detained nationwide during the broader enforcement period. (National Iranian American Council FOIA analysis)

After the new war began in February 2026, ICE arrested an average of 21 Iranian nationals per month. Federal courts released an average of 25 per month over the same period, according to Bloomberg Law's analysis of court records and ICE data. More than 300 Iranian immigrants remained in ICE custody on August 6. The figures do not establish that every arrest was initiated because of nationality or political belief, but the timing and scale make scrutiny of individualized grounds essential. (Bloomberg Law)

Immigration detention is formally civil, not criminal. Its consequences are still custodial: confinement, transfer far from counsel and family, and the possibility of removal to a country at war. Courts' repeated intervention is a sign that executive detention decisions were being tested rather than accepted as conclusive.

The United States deported Iranians while acknowledging the risk

Records obtained through litigation and the Freedom of Information Act show that U.S. and Iranian officials coordinated three deportation flights in September and December 2025 and January 2026. More than 100 Iranian nationals were returned. Internal correspondence reviewed by the Associated Press showed that ICE officials understood that some Iranians were fleeing repression and the consequences of the 2025 war even as the agency made the flights a priority. (Associated Press)

The government said the people removed had final orders and that one person described in reporting as a possible mistaken deportation was instead considered a potential national-security risk. Advocates argued that converts, ethnic minorities, dissidents, and others could face persecution on return. In April, Senator Edward Markey and Representative Yassamin Ansari asked the administration to pause removals and provide Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure to Iranians in the United States. (congressional letter)

When protest is discussed as foreign influence

On September 16, the Justice Department issued an unusual public warning about the Foreign Agents Registration Act and 18 U.S.C. § 951. It said people acting in the United States at the direction or control of a foreign government or principal can face civil or criminal liability if they fail to register or notify authorities. The release specifically included "public demonstrations" designed to advance a foreign power's propaganda or goals and cited a maximum penalty of five years. It also said the department would not inhibit constitutionally protected expression or base decisions on political belief. (Department of Justice)

The legal predicate is critical: sharing a position with a foreign government does not make an activist its agent. FARA requires a qualifying relationship with a foreign principal, while § 951 concerns action subject to a foreign government's direction or control. The concern is therefore not that the statutes automatically criminalize antiwar protest. It is that public emphasis on demonstrations, amid wartime claims about Iranian influence, may chill lawful organizing or invite investigations built on political inference rather than evidence of agency. A law-firm analysis likewise described the announcement as an unusual warning and evidence of a changing enforcement posture. (Paul Hastings)

People in the record

How this briefing was assembled

• Associated Press — Nearly 100 arrested at New York antiwar demonstrationApril 13, 2026
• Public radio — Veterans and military families protest the Iran war on Capitol HillApril 24, 2026
• Associated Press — Protester arrested after Senate hearing-room struggleMarch 4, 2026
• Bloomberg Law — Courts release Iranians from detention faster than ICE arrests themSeptember 29, 2026
• NIAC — ICE data on arrests of Iranian nationals obtained through FOIAMay 7, 2026
• Associated Press — ICE–Iran coordination over deportation flightsAugust 2026
• Senator Edward Markey and Representative Yassamin Ansari — Request for protections for Iranian nationalsApril 2026
• Department of Justice — Liability for unregistered foreign agentsSeptember 16, 2026
• Paul Hastings — Analysis of DOJ's unusual FARA warningSeptember 23, 2026