Senator Tom Cotton’s provocative opinions have gained renewed attention in the current political climate, as his earlier arguments appear to resonate with President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policies.
In 2020, Cotton stirred controversy with an opinion piece in The New York Times.
His remarks came during a tumultuous period in American history, ignited by the murder of George Floyd and subsequent protests against police brutality.
While most demonstrations were peaceful, unrest manifested in certain areas leading to confrontations between law enforcement and civilians.
In this incendiary context, Cotton described the protests as an “orgy of violence” and claimed cities had descended into “lawlessness.”
He suggested that the solution was an overwhelming show of force to restore order, even calling for military intervention to support police efforts.
This suggestion, to invite more violence from those in power, drew significant backlash and prompted a revolt within the Times, which initially defended facilitating Cotton’s views.
However, it eventually revised its stance, resulting in the resignation of James Bennet, the opinion editor.
Amid this unfolding drama, Trump voiced fervent support for Cotton’s op-ed, dubbing it “excellent.”
Fast forward five years, and Trump’s approaches echo Cotton’s earlier sentiments as he implements tough immigration policies across the nation, particularly in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of orchestrating a “military dragnet” in Los Angeles.
Newsom has even sought judicial intervention to prevent the federal government from deploying military forces to assist in immigration raids, arguing this exacerbates existing tensions.
Legality aside, Trump’s firm stance seems to align with a segment of the American populace who believe that a strong hand is necessary to maintain public order and safety.
Cotton’s call for force to quash dissent reflects a broader mindset among many Americans who view such responses as patriotic acts aimed at safeguarding the republic against perceived disorder.
This perspective is politically advantageous for leaders like Newsom, especially as he contemplates a presidential run in 2028.
By characterizing Trump’s policies as those of a “mad” president pursuing dictatorial fantasies, Newsom directs attention away from the considerable support among Americans for Trump’s policies.
Polls indicate that a significant number of Americans, particularly Republicans, endorse Trump’s stringent immigration measures.
This backdrop suggests that despite the predictable outrage from media outlets, Trump’s immigration stance may gain traction among the voter base.
A significant portion of the electorate seems to prefer leaders who exhibit a ‘tough guy’ demeanor and project power, even in the face of the potential consequences.
A notable example of this dynamic can be seen in the public reception of Kyle Rittenhouse, who gained notoriety for shooting three individuals during protests against police violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
His participation in a speaking event at Kent State University drew considerable attention, particularly because of the university’s tragic history involving National Guardsmen shooting unarmed students during an anti-war protest in 1970.
Rittenhouse’s presence was provocative, aiming not only to reshape historical narratives but also to portray state-sanctioned violence in a new light, celebrating personal valor over caution.
Rittenhouse is often celebrated by supporters as a hero, which reflects the broader belief that individual actions in defense of law and order are commendable.
This sentiment is not isolated; it represents a larger cultural shift towards revering emotional displays of power and aggression as appropriate responses to perceived threats.
Under this framework, Trump and Cotton operate within a government and societal structure wherein authority is reinforced through martial displays rather than through fairness and diplomatic discourse.
The unintentionally subtle messaging that celebrates domination remains deeply entrenched among many Americans, indicating a willingness to embrace authority that emphasizes aggression for protection over measured responses.
Trump’s governance style, Cotton’s opinion pieces, and Rittenhouse’s celebrity reflect an inclination in contemporary America to glorify and seek validation in strength and assertion, underscoring a troubling acceptance of forceful tactics as the standard for public order.
Ultimately, Cotton’s advice and Trump’s strategies are not aberrations but rather embodiments of a wider acceptance of authoritarian practices endorsed by a significant portion of American society.
This mindset roots itself not only in political maneuvering but in the foundational beliefs held by many citizens—an unsettling harmony of tactics and emotional responses that may shape America’s future.
image source from：https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/17/with-trumps-military-on-los-angeles-streets-tom-cottons-got-his-wish
