The Kent Stater hopes to encourage lively debate about today’s issues in our Opinion section. To submit an opinion piece for potential publication, email your article to [email protected].
If you keep up with any independent news outlets, you’ve probably heard some version of this a hundred times already: The deployment of National Guard troops into American cities reminds people of the lead-up to the Kent State shooting.
At first, the comparison might seem surface-level and obvious. Both involve the deployment of the National Guard against civilian protests; both involve the American government threatening those who will not comply and Americans who refuse to be silent. But the parallels between these two periods of U.S. history are much more extensive than that.
At a press conference the day before the May 4 massacre, former Ohio Gov. James Rhodes gave a statement that contained language highly reminiscent of the rhetoric we are seeing from the current administration. At this press conference, he castigated protestors as members of “dissident” groups and stated that:
“We’ve seen here at the city of Kent, especially, probably the most vicious form of campus-oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups and their allies in the state of Ohio. … The same group that we’re dealing with here today — and there’s three or four of them — they only have one thing in mind — that is to destroy higher education in Ohio.”
He would further state: “There has to be some way of getting some subsidy for these people to fight, and these people just move from one campus to another and terrorize a community. They’re worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element, and also, the Night Riders and the vigilantes. They’re the worst type of people that we harbor in America.”
Today, Donald Trump echoes the anti-protest rhetoric of the ‘60s and ‘70s when describing the type of people participating in protests.
Speaking on the unrest in Los Angeles earlier this year, Trump said, “The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They’re insurrectionists. … They should be in jail.”
In another example, President Trump posted the following statement in response to the pro-Palestine protests led by Columbia students in 2025:
“All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on [sic] the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!”
During his press conference on May 3, 1970, former Gov. Rhodes said the following in regard to how he wanted protesters to be treated by universities in Ohio:
“If these people are convicted, whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony, participating in a riot, they’re automatically dismissed — there’s no hearing, no recourse and they cannot enter another university in the state of Ohio. We are going to eradicate the problem. We’re not going to treat this simply. And as long as this continues, higher education in Ohio is in jeopardy.”
To take it even further, Trump delivered a speech to a gathering of top military commanders on Sept. 30 of this year, where he referred to defending America from the “enemy from within” and suggested using American cities as training grounds for the U.S. military.
For the Trump Administration, those who oppose their policies are agitators and “the enemy within.” To Gov. Rhodes, they were dissidents and “the worst type of people that we harbor in America.” You could swap the rhetoric between the two and barely notice. The sentiment is the same — Trump is just more open and aggressive about the violence that he wishes to enact against those who defy him.
Trump’s crackdowns against what he believes to be “illegal” protests and “illegal” speech led to international students being captured and forcibly deported and pushed the University of Columbia to severely restrict protests on campus. Just like Rhodes, he wants to use the threats of imprisonment and banishment from educational institutions to control those who disagree with what the government is doing. But Trump makes it clear that he doesn’t want to stop there.
On May 8, 1970, a protest held in New York in response to the May 4 massacre devolved into chaos and rioting when student protesters were violently attacked by a mob of construction workers. The workers who instigated what is now called the “Hard Hat Riot” claimed that their attack was about “sending a message” and making the students face the “consequences” of their actions. These actions included burning the flag, swearing and being “against everything America stands for” and “anti everything,” according to several of the rioters. At least one of the attackers said he hoped that the protesters had “got[ten] the message to support America.”
The Trump Administration is clearly communicating its willingness to use violence to control those who oppose them. But are Trump voters themselves being drawn into the fray in the same way that the perpetrators of the Hard Hat Riot were? The answer to that appears to be a resounding yes.
Open any social media app, and you will encounter tens of thousands of Americans still proudly voicing their support of Trump and their disdain for anyone protesting him. Many of these MAGA folks will freely express their fear of immigrants, their distrust of anything “other” and their hatred of educated elitists who condescend about science and tolerance. Members of the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group affiliated with the MAGA movement, have voiced their desire to hurt or kill protesters; a meme shared on a Proud Boys Telegram channel read, “shoot a couple, the rest will go home.”
Giving people an enemy is an effective way to galvanize your supporters. There are a number of natural axes of opposition that are seen in American politics: urban vs. rural, liberal vs. conservative, progressive vs. traditionalist, white vs. nonwhite, academia vs. vocation. The social conflicts of the ‘60s and ‘70s featured all of these contention points — and so too does the political unrest of our time.
Looking beyond Trump’s own statements to the rest of his cabinet, many other conservative politicians have also taken a swing at labeling protesters as dangerous disrupters in need of punishment in order to inflame the anger of their voting base. House GOP Tom Emmer (R-Minnesota) claimed that the No Kings protests scheduled for Oct. 18 were actually “hate America” rallies, organized by people who “just do not love this country.”
Trump’s Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, accused the protests of being organized by Antifa, saying, “It begs the question, who is funding it?”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Los Angeles) also claimed that the protests were run by Antifa and the “pro-Hamas people.”
Antifa, an anti-fascist ideological movement with no leader or formal structure, was recently officially declared a “domestic terror organization” by President Trump. In a meeting convened to discuss Antifa on Oct. 8 of this year, Trump stated that members of Antifa, “have been very threatening to people, but we’re going to be very threatening to them, far more threatening to them than they ever were with us.”
At the same meeting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated Antifa is just as sophisticated as organizations such as MS-13 or Hamas and “just as dangerous,” while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the administration will take the same approach to destroying Antifa as they have with destroying cartels. Considering Trump’s administration has recently conducted the extrajudicial killings of several dozen people in the name of combating said cartels, this language is highly concerning.
The concern is not that a situation may arise that will directly copy the Kent State shooting, where the National Guard was set against students and protesters. Rather, it is that the reckless and violence-soaked rhetoric of the administration seems like it will inevitably lead to state-sanctioned violence, whether that is at the hands of the military, ICE agents or some other unofficial affiliate.
The parallels between the events that led to the May 4 massacre and the events that are unfolding today are deeply unsettling. All of the elements that created the Kent State massacre and the unrest that followed exist across the U.S. in 2025, and the pressure shows no signs of letting up anytime soon. I believe it is important to stare our situation in the face without sentimentality and see it for what it is: a dark time for America, yes, but also an opportunity.
Because in 2025, we have the events of May 4, 1970, to stand as a warning. And maybe, just maybe, we can still keep it from happening again.
Maryiah Van Kirk is a guest columnist. Contact her at [email protected].