The deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents in US cities and the federal seizure of local law enforcement power represents a threat to democratic self-government in our country. We have already seen these actions taken in LA and DC, with talk of similar plans for other cities.

This framing guide offers recommendations for communicating how these actions violate core democratic principles. The guide is intended as a resource for advocates, organizers, and campaigners, offering frames that can be useful across contexts and help bring into view how actions in different places are part of a broader attack on democracy. These frames can be adapted for local circumstances and strategies, and are offered to support message development in particular contexts.

The suggested frames are general ideas or concepts that orient thinking in helpful ways. Specific wording needs to be crafted by communicators who understand the audience they’re communicating to. For each recommendation, we offer potentially useful language as an input for messaging, though appropriate wording depends on context.

These recommendations are grounded in research from FrameWorks’ Culture Change Project. The guide draws on our foundational research into how people think about democracy, authoritarianism, and the U.S. political system, as well as ongoing research into how people are making sense of the moment and how we can communicate about democracy in the shifting landscape.

Framing Recommendations

#1: Invoke the values of popular self-government and freedom from domination.

These values activate a robust understanding of democracy, orient people toward the power of collective action, and frame actions in different places as part of a broader attack on democracy. They also make it possible to connect current actions to longstanding failures to realize democracy in the US (e.g., the ongoing violation of the right to self-government of the people of DC).

Useful language:

“we the people,” “govern ourselves,” “determine what happens to us,” (not) “being under the thumb of,” (not) “being at the whim of”

Do:

DO invoke the core values of popular self-government (we, the people, have a right to govern ourselves) and freedom from domination (we shouldn’t have to live according to the whims of powerful people).

Don’t:

DON’T get bogged down in legalese. People quickly tune out if a debate seems like it’s for lawyers, not themselves.

#2: Use the language of consent to connect the idea of popular self-government to specific actions.

 Talking about how people didn’t ask for and don’t consent to federal actions in their cities offers a way to illustrate how these actions violate this fundamental principle. The language of consent echoes previous fights for democracy, given its deep roots in the American political tradition.

Useful language:

“don’t consent,” “didn’t ask for,” actions being “done against people’s will”

Do:

DO use the language of “consent.” Consider using terms like “seize” or “usurp” to talk about taking local power without consent.

Don’t:

DON’T assume that “takeover” conveys the full story. This term has connotations that may not be helpful (e.g., companies are taken over when they’re mismanaged).

#3: Invoke representation.

Appealing to representation activates one of the most productive available understandings of democracy—that people should be genuinely represented by their leaders. This idea provides a way of criticizing anti-democratic actions: leaders aren’t representing people—they’re not acting in our interests or carrying out our will. The refusal to represent offers a throughline that helps us connect what is happening across places.

Useful language:

“our leaders are supposed to represent us,” they “aren’t representing people,” “are acting against people’s wishes,” “are acting against people’s interests”

Do:

DO invoke democracy after introducing ideas like representation and popular self-government. Connecting the idea of democracy to these concepts grounds thinking and prevents activating associations that aren’t helpful (e.g., that democracy is whatever happens in the US). 

Don’t:

DON’T invoke democracy without using these ideas to unpack its meaning. People have lots of ways of understanding democracy, and not all of them are helpful. You can’t assume that when people hear “democracy” they think of the same thing you do.

#4: Talk about purported “emergencies” for mobilizing troops as a pretense for taking power.

Describing these justifications as an excuse to seize power invalidates them while avoiding being pulled into debates about the “emergency” issue (e.g., crime, immigration, etc.), which is generally unproductive terrain. When the debate focuses on these issues, it takes attention away from the anti-democratic character of the actions.

Useful language:

“excuse to take power from the people,” “pretense for seizing power”

Do:

DO frame “emergency” justifications for bringing in troops as a pretense for seizing power.

Don’t:

DON’T amplify unproductive narratives by spending your whole communication refuting the bogus stories being told. These claims can be refuted succinctly before getting back to your message. And don’t offer a list of crime statistics, which people are likely to dispute or interpret in unexpected ways, focusing attention back on crime and away from the threat to democracy.

#5: Lean into the idea of diversity to paint a positive picture of cities.

The best way to counter depictions of US cities as crime-ridden, dirty, and depraved is to paint a positive picture that stresses cities’ very real strengths. Americans widely recognize diversity as enriching and a source of vibrancy. Cuing this idea provides a ready way to counter the negative picture.

Useful language:

“diverse,” “vibrant,” “thriving”; “diversity is a strength”

Do:

DO describe US cities as diverse and vibrant.

Don’t:

DON’T amplify negative narratives by explaining how our cities are not what they say.

#6: Connect unconstrained power to feelings of uncertainty and fear—the experience of being under someone’s thumb.

Living at the whim of an authoritarian government creates experiences of arbitrariness, uncertainty, and fear. People are having these experiences—our research participants often voice them—but typically don’t connect them back to the authoritarian use of power. Making this connection explicit can help bring the abstraction of authoritarianism to life.

Useful language:

“when leaders can tell us what we can and can’t do, moment to moment, it creates uncertainty and fear,” “being told what to do, without any say,” “coping with unpredictability and uncertainty,” “being under the thumb of the government”

Do:

DO use the experience of arbitrariness, uncertainty, and fear as a way into talking about authoritarian domination.

Don’t:

DON’T just talk about “authoritarianism” or “fascism” as abstract ideas and assume people know what this looks like.

#7: Describe the seizure of local power as another way of rigging the system against us.

The idea that the system is rigged is widely shared. Using this frame focuses attention on how power is being wielded. The frame provides another way of linking what’s happening in different places and connecting actions against cities to other authoritarian uses of power.

Useful language:

“taking power from the people of [city],” “taking power for the few,” “rigging the system for their own benefit,” “rigging the system against Black communities in [city]”

For more guidance about how to talk (and not talk) about rigged systems, see this quick-start guide.

Do:

DO use the idea that the system is rigged to bring into view what is happening—the seizure of power.

Don’t:

DON’T validate federal actions by treating the purported emergencies used to justify them as serious and sincere.

#8: Highlight immediate harm to people.

It’s easy—especially for people who aren’t in the affected city—to think of these situations as conflicts between local or state and federal governments and not as affecting real people who live in these places. Providing concrete examples of how actions are harming the people of these cities helps bring home the real-life impact of authoritarian actions. It’s important to talk about specific harms, including effects on immigrants, young people, unhoused people, and Black and brown people, and to highlight how these effects stem from uses of power that affect everyone in the city.

Useful language:

“harming the people of [city],” “terrorizing people,” “harassing members of the community,” “intimidating people”

Do:

DO talk about effects on people. Give concrete examples of harm. Highlight harm to specific groups as examples of the misuse of power and link these misuses to effects on other groups and the city as a whole.

Don’t:

DON’T describe situations as only a conflict between federal and local or state governments.

#9: Emphasize our power to say “no.”

Stressing our collective power is important to prevent fatalism and detachment. Talking about our power to say no connects the value of popular self-government to the actions we can take now.

Useful language:

“we can and must stand up and say ‘no’,” “collective power,” “together we can reclaim control over our own lives”

Do:

DO conclude with a call to action and appeal to our collective power.

Don’t:

DON’T stop at highlighting the problem.

Additional resources around the effects of federal actions on specific groups and how to talk about them:

• Framing Guide for Talking About Adolescents in a Time of Manufactured Panic (FrameWorks Institute)
• 6 Ideas for Talking About Housing Not Handcuffs (Housing Not Handcuffs)