This past week, thousands of teenagers have taken the streets of France, clashing with police as they demonstrate against the deplorable conditions in their high schools and a rapidly collapsing future. This is a promising sign, shifting attention from the seemingly unstoppable rise of the extreme right to the question of what people can do on a grassroots basis to defend themselves. Our correspondents in Paris explore the situation in detail. Another unprecedented summer of record heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires throughout Europe underlines the desperate situation we are all facing today, while politicians of all stripes and their techno-industrial sponsors continue to turn a blind eye, forcing us down the path to catastrophe in the name of progress. Hoping to turn the page on these environmental disasters, the French government has hurriedly shifted focus to other priorities. The coming months represent a crucial transition for Emmanuel Macron and his government, as they will bring Macron’s second term to a close, opening a new political era in France. Candidates are already battling to succeed Macron in power at the beginning of May 2027. In the midst of this political spectacle, during an increasingly menacing surge in the popularity of the National Rally (formerly, the National Front), the extreme-right party, it is especially meaningful that teenagers have started to organize at a grassroots level to defend themselves. This organizing gained momentum last week, when blockades of high schools, demonstrations, and riots erupted across France, taking everyone by surprise. Students clash with police forces in Montpellier on October 2, 2026. Licensed to Kill? Since Macron was elected President for the first time in May 2017, the political discourse in France has been even more dominated by an emphasis on authoritarian and far-right ideologies in terms of security, immigration, and economic and social issues. This political shift towards an even more aggressive form of governance has led to increasing state violence targeting the social movements and uprisings that have emerged since. From the eviction of the ZAD at Notre-Dame-des-Landes in 2017 to the riots following the murder of Nahel in 2023, not forgetting the Yellow Vest sequence and the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown experimental doctrines, we have experienced a headlong plunge into a world of surveillance, repression, and loss of individual freedoms. This has become today’s new normal. It was in this already suffocating context that last July, the French government decided to vote on a new bill giving police officers more latitude to use their firearms without consequences—a demand that the far right has promoted for years. If voted through, this legislation could set a dangerous precedent, as it would establish “a presumption of ‘legitimate use of arms’ by police and gendarmes ‘in the exercise of their duty’.” Police arrest a student in Lyons on October 1, 2026. In other words, not only will police officers be able to freely use their weapons if in any situation they claim to fear for their lives or the lives of others, but authorities will no longer have to prove that the officers acted within the framework of the law, as they are required to do today. It will be up to the victims and their families to provide evidence that the use of firearms was not justified. We can already see how this new law represents a legislative tool enabling law enforcement agents, and therefore, the state, to cover up future murders. Unwilling to let such a law pass without resistance, political opponents and radicals, who had rightly rebranded this law the “license to kill,” decided to organize massive demonstrations and events throughout France on the weekend of September 18 to 20. Thousands of people took part in these protests in different major cities alongside traditional leftist politicians, rights groups such as Amnesty International and the League of Human Rights, and various lawyers and magistrates’ unions. In the meantime, another call for action reusing all the codes of the Yellow Vest movement spread online. The origins of this call remain obscure, as some national newspapers have raised the possibility that AI-generated accounts had flooded social media platforms with this rumor on purpose. Nevertheless, media and politicians began commenting on this potential resurgence of the Yellow Vest movement due to the rise of fuel prices and the overall increase of living costs. Rumor or not, the call to take the streets on October 17, 2026 has spread and only the future will tell us if people’s desperation and anger will be able to give birth to another inspiring moment. Police forces welcome students blocking their high school with clouds of tear gas in Lille on September 30, 2026. Growing Frustrations… Since mid-September, another form of discontent has been slowly spreading within another part of society. Tired of their working conditions, some high-school students decided to block access to their schools in order to make their voices heard. During the early stages of what became a national movement a few days later, only a few high schools were blocked here and there. This did not create any real impact or worry the authorities. Among the students’ various demands, we can summarize the following points: Reduce the number of students per class. For years now, the number of students per class has gradually increased to the point that it is not unusual for a teacher to have an average of between 30 to 35 students in a classroom. This is impacting the capacity for every single student to learn at their own pace. Reduce the number of school hours per week. Even if France is known for having numerous and long school breaks throughout the year, students usually spend a long day at school—sometimes from 8 am until 6 pm—adding up to 28 or 35 hours of teaching per week, depending on the high school level and options. Improve high school infrastructure. Just like the state’s territorial management, high schools reproduce social inequalities. Some high schools located in rich districts have no infrastructure issues, while high schools located in low-income areas are falling apart. For example, some high schools have constant bathroom issues, some have no heat during winter and no proper insulation, some have roofs that leak when it rains. Put an end to “ParcourSup.” “ParcourSup” is the name of an online platform that students have to use during their final year to list what they would like to do after the school year. Created in 2018, this platform allows students to list their “wishes” and apply to different post-secondary education options such as universities, colleges, vocational and trade schools, and the like. Run by algorithms, this platform has been criticized since its implementation for the opacity of the criteria according to which it fulfills or thwarts students’ wishes. The platform creates considerable stress and competition among students, as those with better grades can be accepted more easily while the others might find no options whatsoever after high school, proving once more that this form of computerized selection increases social disparities and inequalities. Engage more substitute teachers to maintain continuity in learning. Students have been complaining that when one of their teachers is sick, there is often no substitute teacher available to take over in order to assist them in continuing to learn. This creates situations in which students sometimes don’t have a teacher for weeks in a specific discipline, even if it will be part of their national high school diploma exam. Students burning trash bins in front of a high school in Lille on October 1, 2026. All the previous points made by students are the direct result of years of educational restructuring, public spending cuts, and neo-liberal reforms. More and more, public schools are managed like private companies and forced to compete with one another to be more efficient. This is not to say that without public spending cuts and neo-liberal reforms, the school system would be desirable. Under capitalism, the school system is a tool for the state to coerce us, to crush our individuality, to subdue our rebellious spirits and desires in order to reduce us to a docile workforce that can be exploited for the rest of our lives. Police forces moving towards a burning barricade in Saint-Denis on October 1, 2026. …Burst into Flames By Monday, September 28, word had finally spread among students to coordinate actions on a larger scale. Early that morning, students started blocking the entrances of their schools, creating makeshift barricades out of whatever they could find nearby and in some cases by setting trash containers ablaze. Some of these blockades might have been the initiative of student unions or small political organizations, but in other cases, these actions were clearly personal initiatives on the part of small groups of highly motivated individuals. Viral images on social media likely helped to spread the word, creating a domino effect among teenagers: “Look at what the other high school is doing. Let’s do it, too!” This first day of action set the tone for the rest of the week as the movement spread beyond Paris and its suburbs. The following day, while teachers, health care workers, firefighters, and other people from the public sector went on strike and demonstrated by the thousands in various cities against the next government budget cuts and in favor of better wages and working conditions, high-school students increased the pressure by protesting in front of some 400 schools throughout France, fully blockading approximately 40 of them. Without hesitating, Laurent Nuñez, the current Interior Minister and former Prefect of Police of Paris from 2022 to 2025, decided to repress this emerging movement via brute force. Police were sent to high schools to crush the blockades and disperse the crowds of teenagers. Unsurprisingly, this strategy provoked confrontations between high-school students and heavily equipped police forces. During the clashes, police used numerous tear gas canisters and shot rubber bullets at students while groups of teenagers and young adults resisted by throwing stones, bottles, fireworks, and other projectiles. By the end of the second day of actions, more than 400 individuals had been arrested across France, with two thirds of those arrests leading to police custody, according to official sources. Police forces in front of a burning barricade in Lille on September 30, 2026. Nevertheless, the brutal repression didn’t undermine the determination of the students, who decided to continue the movement, blocking the schools on a massive scale on Wednesday, September 30. Clashes with law enforcement continued to escalate while blockades and other actions spread to numerous major cities, forcing the Interior Minister to officially recognize that same night that despite his repressive strategy, the student movement was gaining momentum and expanding. On September 30, police arrested 625 individuals during the clashes. The first evidence of police brutality circulated online, as at least three students were severely injured by police ammunition. On Thursday, October 1, the students continued to organize. For the first time since the beginning of the movement, some university students decided to join the struggle—even if they were not as numerous and determined to act as their younger accomplices. Fully 900 demonstrations, riots, and blockades took place all around France. Authorities reported arson attempts both outside and inside some buildings; due to some extensive fire damage, a high school in Nantes will remain closed for a whole month. That day, students were able to shut down at least 160 high schools and to block access to 30 universities. This intense day of action resulted in almost 2000 new arrests, raising the total number of students arrested and detained since the beginning of the week to nearly 3000. The Nelson Mandela high school in Nantes on October 1, 2026. After the arson, the high school will remain closed for at least a month. Defending Power at Any Cost That night, the government realized that its inability to control student unrest was drawing it towards another political crisis. In order to regain control of the situation, the authorities made several hasty decisions: The current Prime Minister called a crisis cabinet meeting for the following day to discuss possible plans and strategies to put an end to this unrest, on the grounds that the situation had shifted from a student movement characterized by school blockades to an unruly situation of urban violence. The Minister of Education announced publicly that 400 high schools would be closed on Friday for “safety reasons,” either because the safety of the working personnel and students could not be assured, or simply on account of property damage. Students who can’t go to their schools will be following their classes online. In doing this, the government is reusing some of the strategies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in a different context. The Minister of Education also announced that, the following day, he would meet with student unions and political organizations to hear their demands and find collective solutions in order to end the crisis. By meeting so-called spokespersons, the government wants to weaken the movement by dividing “good” students with legitimate requests from “rioters” and “violent individuals.” The Interior Minister presented law enforcement agencies with an official list of all the high schools considered “high risk” by its intelligence services. In Paris alone, there were 13 high schools on this list. This suggests that the government has identified potential threats to the reigning order and is preparing to do everything in its power to neutralize these threats. The Minister of Justice gathered attorneys general in order to discuss the proper legal response to adopt in order to prosecute all the students in custody. It is highly possible that the government will try to process these cases as fast as possible in courts, requesting harsh legal repercussions in order to make an example of these brave young individuals. Nonetheless, all these announcements barely curbed the momentum of student unrest. Actions, blockades, and clashes with police continued across the country on Friday, October 2 before a well-deserved weekend. A police officer attempts to destroy a burning barricade in Aubagne on October 2, 2026. After a full week of political unrest involving intense property destruction, confrontations with law enforcement, and repression, and while the first trials were getting underway, political leaders of every stripe sought to use this situation to their own advantage, reaffirming their various positions. While Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right party National Rally, emphasized the supposed need to create a new “anti-rioter” law in order to repress those who commit property destruction and resist police, the Macron government criticized the “violence” that took place and played on the classic dichotomy between “good ways of protesting” and “unforgivable ways of protesting”—while at the same time accusing the so-called “far-left” statist party of being responsible of all these events. Clashes between students and police forces in Brest on October 2, 2026. On Sunday, October 4, the government officially announced that the following day, more than 400 high schools in France would remain closed as security conditions still could not be assured. The Minister of Education declared that “24 schools had been burnt or ransacked and 78 education staff members injured” since the beginning of the movement. Riot police arrest a demonstrator in front of a high school in Toulouse on October 2, 2026. Students running away from tear gas in the streets of Lyons on October 2, 2026. What Now? Right now, information is flooding media outlets about the events of Monday, October 5. So far, it is estimated that almost 1000 individuals were arrested today, 589 schools experienced protests or blockades—240 schools in the Paris region alone—and 65 law enforcement agents were injured during confrontations with demonstrators. This suggests that the movement is not slowing down. We are deeply saddened to learn that on October 5, in Lens, a 15-year-old boy lost his hand after picking up a stun grenade that law enforcement officers used to attack protesters. One of the three teenagers injured last week suffers from a broken jaw, having been shot point blank with a grenade launcher. Currently, the 14-year-old boy can’t open his mouth, as all his bottom teeth were knocked out by the impact and all his upper teeth are broken. Another 16-year-old teenager injured last week lost an eye after an officer shot him in the face with a rubber bullet. Unfortunately, as the government is not willing to back down and wants to regain control by any means necessary, police violence will only continue to escalate. More and more serious injuries are likely to occur in the next days of confrontations. So far, according to official sources, 215 students have been injured since the beginning of the movement, as well as 85 educational staff members and—supposedly—715 law enforcement officers. These figures are skewed to over-represent police: the state does not distinguish “offensive” injuries such as bruised knuckles from inflicted injuries, while most demonstrators who are injured do not dare to seek treatment for their wounds or, if they do, conceal the fact that they were injured by police violence. Injuring and mutilating people both physically and psychologically is the only solution the state has found to preserve the fragile illusion of order. The police and the government are not here to protect us. Since the beginning of the student unrest, 5060 people have been arrested, including 4406 minors and 654 adults. As of today, 1802 individuals are facing charges: 1483 minors and 319 adults. Of those, 14 are in pre-trial detention—10 adults and 4 minors. A burning barricade in Aubervilliers on October 2, 2026. Right now, people are holding their breath on the eve of the Third Act of this high school movement. On Tuesday, October 6, there is another call to join students in the streets. Several sectors are already planning a variety of blockades elsewhere in France in solidarity. No one can predict what will happen next or if the current political unrest will continue to gain momentum, reinventing and extending itself until October 17, the next day that there is a national call to take the streets. No one knows if the movement will find its resources to survive the brutal state and police repression that it is experiencing. All we know for certain is that nothing is written in advance. The courage of the students taking part of this movement should inspire all of us to act now and to continue to push forward in order to fight against all odds for a better world! Confrontations in Cran-Gevrier between students and police forces on October 1, 2026. Further Reading These articles, written in French, explore these events further: À nos enfants et lycéens Brûle ton lycée A makeshift barricade in the streets of Paris on October 2, 2026. The graffiti refers to the extreme-right National Rally party.

Across three decades, Russia has been at the forefront of the worldwide descent into authoritarianism. Vladimir Putin’s government has suppressed opposition in ways that aspiring autocrats like Donald Trump are still striving to emulate. Yet despite widespread repression, there is still resistance in Russia, and as Putin’s model proliferates, people everywhere around the world stand to benefit from learning about it. Likewise, we should support Russian anarchist and anti-war prisoners, both because resistance within Russia offers hope for the eventual end of war and totalitarianism and because, should autocrats consolidate power where we live, we will wish for people to support us, as well. The following text is based on a presentation Antti Rautiainen offered at the Baltic Anarchist Book Fair in Tartu on May 30, 2026. You can watch a video of the presentation here or listen to it via Spotify. In Russia, street protests against the war were crushed in 2022, the first year following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the human rights organization OVD Info, 18,901 arrests for anti-war protests in year 2022 were followed by 274 arrests in 2023, 41 arrests in 2022, and just 13 arrests in first half of the year 2025. The reason for this sharp decline was the “Ilya Dadin” law of 2014, according to which “repeated offenses in following the established organization of protests” across a period of 180 days can result a prison sentence of up to 5 years. Thousands of people were arrested once or twice for taking part in anti-war street activities in 2022 and received either a fine or a prison sentence of a few days—but few risked being arrested for a third time. Detentions for anti-war actions by year, first half of 2025, according to OVD-Info. Russian polls have been unreliable since spring 2022. After the criminalization of anti-war opinions, some polling companies reported that up to 60% of people queried refused to give answers. Before the polls became unreliable, 58-71% of Russians indicated a pro-war sentiment in various polls. However, opinions were intensely polarized between different groups. People in major cities were more anti-war than those in other locations; younger people were more anti-war, as were women. The greatest division was between people who watch television, the chief propaganda tool of the state, and people who do not watch it. Among people less than 30 years old who do not watch television, 80% were anti-war. The general impression among critical Russians is that the majority of those in Russia still share a pro-war sentiment. However, a shift is visible even in officially tolerated opinion polls. According to polls by the Levada Center, over the past two years, the share of Russians supporting the continuation of the war effort has dropped from around 41% to around 28%, and share of those who support peace talks has grown from 51% to 62%. At the same time, the number of those who support making concessions to Ukraine is at 24%: people want peace, but on terms favorable to Russia. Of course, this may simply reflect what people are willing to say to anonymous pollsters. Another difference is that now, people in small cities and rural localities are expressing more anti-war sentiment than those in major urban centers. Moscow is the most pro-war city. The likely explanation is that most of the frontline casualties are from small, peripheral communities. Factors Undermining the Anti-War Movement Why, after more than four years of war, with more than a million Russian soldiers wounded or dead, is anti-war sentiment still confined to a minority? As the saying goes, “It’s the economy, stupid.” During the first years of the war, salaries were growing even with high inflation rate. Starting in 2004, the Russian ruling class hoarded huge profits of the oil and gas trade in a fund currently known as the “National Wealth Fund.” Instead of raising the standard of living by investing in healthcare, social benefits and services, and the like, the money was stashed to be spent on wars and militarization. Now these billions are finally flowing into the economy in the form of wartime investment. The unemployment rate is negligible; in some cases, salaries have multiplied at factories in regions that were previously economically depressed. Generous monthly payments for contract soldiers are up to five times the average salary in poorer regions. At the same time, payments to widows and orphans are shifting the economy in the most destitute areas of the Russian federation, from which most of the enlisted soldiers come. During the first months of 2026, the Russian economy contracted for the first time since the beginning of the war; but now, once again, it is on a growth trajectory, due to the oil price hike following the war in Iran. The Russian state budget is running on a deficit due to the costs of the war, but there are plenty of ways to solve that issue, such as tax increases, using what remains of the National Wealth Fund, cutting social spending and education, and forcing oligarchs to buy state obligations. The Russian economy will likely be able to sustain the war for several years yet, although the standard of living is stagnating now and drone strikes are causing increasing inconvenience. Another factor explaining Russian support for the war is the situation on the frontline. Russia’s advances have been very slow for years, but most weeks, Russia is still gaining more territory than it is losing. The traditional dream of socialists of all stripes is that soldiers will turn their rifles against the ruling class and finish the war. But throughout world history, this usually takes place in a situation in which a war has already been lost, as in Russia in February 1917 and Germany in November 1918. It is not certain that Russia will win this war, but as long as the chances are high, many people would like to be on the winning side. The third factor is that for a random person, the risk of ending up in the war remains low. The independent media project Mediazona, originally established by members of Pussy Riot, has been tracking Russian losses by monitoring social media and other sources, and they have been able dig up information about 239,000 dead at the front. Of these casualties, the service branch of 22.5% of the casualties is unknown. 36.7% are volunteers, 11% are inmates, 21.5% are contract soldiers, and only 8.3% are mobilized soldiers. Some of the volunteers, inmates, and contract soldiers have not signed their contracts voluntarily; inmates and conscripts are pressured to sign contracts. But the vast majority of them had a choice, and even those mobilized often had the option of not appearing in the enlistment office and leaving the country or dodging the draft by other means. Few people who have died in the front have genuinely used every means at their disposal to avoid this. Also, many of those who would otherwise have opposed the war have left Russia. The exodus that took place in 2022 involved up to 700,000 people. Many of them have returned due to the difficulties of life in emigration, but emigration is continuing. At the same time, the intensity of the repression targeting anti-war opinion is without precedent since the beginning of Perestroika in 1986. From Protests to Direct Action Yet there are still protests and social movements. Activatica is a project monitoring protests in Russia, and they are tracking several hundred protests and direct actions every month. The most popular topics are environmental issues; anti-repression events, such as letter writing events for political prisoners, are still tolerated. Activatica lists much fewer anti-war protests, and those are usually direct actions. In a few cities, lone pickets of stubborn pensioners are still occasionally tolerated without a resulting prison sentence, such as the pickets by Viktor Gilin in Perm. Protests and direct actions by type, monthly, year 2025, according to Activatica. The number of anti-war direct actions actually appears to be growing. In 2024, Activatica recorded 145 actions; in 2025, 233 actions. Activatica tries not to count actions provoked by Ukrainian internet scammers, who hack the bank accounts of (usually elderly) persons, then blackmail them into carrying direct actions, which often result in severe sentences. The internet scamming industry is widespread in Ukraine, and it is contributing to the war effort in this dubious way, perhaps also as a consequence of its links to Ukrainian security services. Direct actions by region, 2024, according to Activatica. Direct actions by Russian region, 2025, according to Activatica. However, Activatica does not attempt to differentiate between actions carried out by activists and Ukrainian secret services—which is challenging in any case, because the secret services occasionally masquerade as activists. One may assume that actions involving explosives that occur not far from the Ukrainian border, or professional-level assassinations of Russian officers in major cities, are unlikely to be the efforts of activists, whereas small-scale Molotov cocktail attacks far from the frontline are probably the work of activists. Often, it is difficult to be sure who is behind what. Moreover, it is possible that people who genuinely oppose the war are contacting Ukrainian secret services in order to solve their own financial problems, or in order to combine their financial and a political interests. The model of Ukrainian secret service hiring civilians for money might be described as “Sabotage as Service”—the same model that is widely used by the Russian secret services in Ukraine and around Europe. Oil storage facilities burned in Kandry, Bashkokorstan, in an action claimed by Rospartisan on May 26, 2026. Rospartisan has a big-tent policy of covering any anti-war direct actions, from anarchists to the far-right. The vast majority of small-scale sabotage actions are not claimed by any group. During the first years of the war, the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists (BOAK) succeeded in conducting several major sabotage actions. BOAK was established before the 2022 invasion; it represents the direct continuation of the wave of insurrectionary anarchism that occurred in Russia from 2008-2013, inspired by the uprising in Greece in December 2008 after the police murdered Alexandros Grigoropoulos. Among the founders of the organization was Dmitry Petrov, an anarchist from Moscow who was killed by Russian forces while defending Ukraine in 2023. The logo of the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists. No one that the authorities have caught has been proven to be a BOAK activist. In one case, the authorities claimed that they had arrested a BOAK member for carrying out direct action, but an anarchist political prisoner who was held in the same prison confirmed that the activist had nothing to do with BOAK or anarchism. The case of another person who was arrested last year and accused of being a BOAK member still awaits confirmation or refutation, due to the secrecy of the court materials. BOAK cannot confirm or refute such claims because it does not preserve the personal details of its contacts. A photograph from a BOAK action. A photograph from a BOAK action. But although BOAK members have been able to evade the Russian authorities, several have been forced to flee Russia or to tone down their activities. This has largely reduced BOAK to a propaganda organization promoting direct action and anarchism. Organizations Supporting Anarchist and Direct-Action Prisoners Anarchists have established several organizations to support anarchists facing repression. Currently, the oldest is the Anarchist Black Cross of Moscow, established in 2003. For more than two decades, ABC Moscow has supported repressed anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-authoritarians and their supporters. As of now, ABC Moscow lists 23 anarchist and anti-fascist political prisoners in Russia, of whom 14 are in prison for alleged actions against industry or the military. Most of the rest were imprisoned prior to the full-scale invasion in 2022. During the first years of the war, ABC Moscow spread information about and supported diverse anti-war direct-action prisoners, but lately, their efforts have been confined to supporting anarchist and anti-authoritarian prisoners, due to the sheer number of anti-war prisoners. In 2025, ABC Moscow (and all the other ABC groups) were declared “undesirable” in Russia, which means that donating to them can result in a three-year prison sentence. Eventually, ABC Moscow moved all of its activities and members abroad; today, it focuses on spreading information and raising funds outside Russia. News about ABC Moscow activity appears regularly on the Avtonom website and via the group’s own Telegram channel. ABC Moscow can receive donations via Paypal and cryptocurrencies. As ABC Moscow’s activities inside Russia have become impossible, another organization has emerged to support anarchist and anti-authoritarian prisoners, named Fires of Freedom. You can follow its Russian-language Telegram channel here. Fires of Freedom. Solidarity Zone is another initiative started by anti-authoritarians to support anti-war direct action prisoners of various political convictions (excluding the far right). It was established in 2022, at a time when mainstream human rights organizations were not willing to support those sentenced for arsons and “terrorist” charges. Since then, the situation has changed; now, Russian opposition and human rights organizations have a more positive attitude towards direct action. However, Solidarity Zone is still providing support for 15 prisoners serving lengthy sentences for allegedly carrying out direct action, and the organization is following the cases of many more. Solidarity Zone. Although the mainstream democratic opposition has become more supportive of prisoners accused of direct action, in practice, the sheer number of prisoners has overwhelmed all prisoner support structures. The most significant Russian human rights organization, Memorial, has declared 1715 prisoners to be political, of whom 674 are anti-war prisoners. It has also listed 5608 people with “politically motivated charges.” Their process of identifying political prisoners has been slowed down severely by the number of cases. For example, Memorial designated the anarchist Alexandr Snezhkov as a political prisoner only two years after his case was submitted to them. In reality, the number of political prisoners in Russia is probably twice as many as they list. The growth of the number of political prisoners in Russia from 2012-2025, according to Memorial. Graph by Riddle. In the first half of 2026, 1234 people were sentenced for “terrorism” (including incitement)—an increase of 38% compared with the first half of 2025. The median prison sentence was 13 years. By the end of 2025, there were 5412 prisoners in Russia with “terrorism” charges, an annual growth of 40.9%. This number includes Ukrainian prisoners of war, who are routinely charged with ”terrorism,” sabotage as a service, provocateur victims etc. Motivations may also overlap. Altogether, 21,600 people are listed as “terrorists and extremists” on the blacklist of the Rosfinmonitoring, the Russian Federal Service of Financial Monitoring. In addition to prisoners, this list includes people whose sentences expired long ago, and people who have emigrated. Ending up on this list means a lifetime ban on receiving almost any bank services. In practice, those on the list can only earn a living in cash. Although supporting political prisoners has been a top priority for the Russian opposition, the avalanche of cases has caused prisoner support structures to collapse, and political prisoners have been reduced to statistics. More and more political prisoners have to face court without any financial support or lawyers. At this point, it is also worth asking what the point of such support even is, as no charges against political prisoners have been thrown out as a consequence of the efforts of lawyers, no matter how skillful. The outcome of every case has been decided long before they make it to the court. Nonetheless, lawyers provide a critical—albeit expensive—means of communicating with prisoners during the periods of investigation. Often, the authorities have stopped torturing prisoners after lawyers have become involved in their cases. Legal work sometimes secures some minor victories. For example, in summer 2023, Ivan Kudryashov, who was supported by Solidarity Zone while imprisoned for putting up anti-war posters in his hometown of Tver, won a hunger strike after 40 days, gaining the promise that he would have access to vegan food and vitamins sent to him in parcels. Viktor Filinkov, who was arrested in January 2018 and sentenced to seven years in prison on the accusation of being a member of a supposed underground anarchist “Network,” was repeatedly placed in solitary confinement in his prison colony. But with help of lawyers, he managed to challenge these policies and spent last years of his imprisonment in general population. Ivan Kurdyashov. An Incomplete List of Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarians in Russian Prisons and Prisoner Camps for Opposing the War Dmitri Syutkin is a young anarchist, and as many of the younger anarchists, encountered with anarchist ideas online and was rather isolated from the anarchist movement. He is from a small city in the Sverdlovsk region, and he maintained a small telegram channel advocating anarchism and independent Ural region. Three years ago, at the age of 17, he was entrapped by the FSB, who deceived him, claiming to represent Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine. Anarchist prisoner support groups only became aware of him this year. Accused of terrorism and other charges, he may face up to 10 years in prison. Dmitri Syutkin. Another anarchist prisoner who was discovered relatively recently is Alexey Grigorev from Novotroitsk in the Orenburg region. Accused of planning to burn an FSB building and military recruiting center and of having contact with the Ukrainian authorities, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison in February 2025, before any prisoner support group learned of his case. Alexey Grigorev. Perhaps the most successful of the lone anarchist partisans is Ruslan Sidiki, who, unlike the prisoners listed above, had connection with the anarchist movement, having been active in a small and longstanding anarchist rural commune in the Leningrad area, close to St. Petersburg. He attempted to use drones to destroy strategic bombers, but failed as a consequence of electronic jammers. A second action against freight train was more successful, completely derailing a train transporting chemical ingredients. However, due to a small mistake, Ruslan was caught following a massive manhunt and sentenced to 29 years in prison in May 2025. This year, Ruslan’s lawyer was arrested, but Fires of Freedom managed to raise funds to pay for new lawyer to file his appeal. Ruslan Sidiki visiting the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in better times. Alexey Rozhkov, another lone anarchist partisan, was one of the first people to attack military enlistment offices. He attempted an attack with Molotov cocktails on March 11, 2022, just two weeks after the war began. He was soon arrested, but because minor sabotage did not yet result in automatic terrorist charges during the first months of the war, he was released pending court and escaped to Kyrgysztan. Unfortunately, he was kidnapped there, brought back to Russia, tortured, and charged with terrorism. In May 2026, he received a sentence of 16 years in prison. Alexey Rozhkov Eventually, this and other actions against enlistment offices inspired a massive wave of arson attacks. Mediazone listed 94 such attacks during the first year and a half of the war. During that early phase of the war, many enlistment offices did not have their files digitized, so burning an office could protect everyone from an urban neighbourhood or rural region from being sent to war for several months. Eventually, the authorities began a hurried effort to digitize all the conscript files; although actions against enlistment offices still occasionally take place, the value of the target is now doubtful. Currently, most anti-war sabotage is targeted against transport and energy infrastructure such as railroads. Alexey Rozhkov with Molotov Cocktail. CCTV camera footage, scan from print of the court documents. Arson attacks against military enlistment offices and other administrative buildings during the first year of the war, according to Mediazona. Blue signifies before the August mobilization, orange signifies after. Currently, the most significant case against anarchists is the Tyumen case, which is still in court. Six anarchists from Yekaterinburg in the Ural region and Tyumen and Surgut of Siberia are accused of establishing a clandestine anarchist organization. In August 2022, Kirill Brik and Deniz Aydin were arrested in a forest in Tyumen, allegedly while attempting to test explosives. Arrests followed in Yekaterinburg and Surgut. All of the arrestees were brutally tortured; they confessed, but eventually all of them except Kirill Brik recanted their testimony. Still, with a cooperating witness, the situation of the others accused is dire. Nikita Oleynik, the founder of the anarchist library Burevestnik (“Storm Petrel”) in Surgut, is accused of being “a leader of a terrorist group” and is in a danger of receiving a life sentence. The life sentence was introduced in Russia in 1992 as a replacement for the death penalty. For 34 years, no one with a life sentence has ever been released in Russia. The other defendants in the Tyumen case face up to 25 years in prison each. Deniz Aidyn. Yuri Neznamov. Danil Chertykov. Nikita Oleynik. Roman Paklin. Aleksandr Snezhkov and Lyubov Lizunova were arrested in Chita in the far east of Russia in October 2022, while only 19 and 16 years old. Allegedly, they painted graffiti reading ”Death to the regime.” They were also suspected of administering a Telegram channel with anarchist and anti-war messages. Snezhkov was sentenced to six years in prison and Lizunova to three and a half years in April 2024. This year, Aleksandr received an additional sentence for “incitement” because he allegedly read his legal papers to other prisoners; he has been sent to a stricter prison for the remaining two years of his sentence. Lyubov Lizunova and Aleksandr Snezhkov. Solidarity Zone tracked down the anarchist Roman Shvedov in the court system in autumn 2024. He was accused of anti-war arson. However, he refused the support that Solidarity Zone offered, insisting that there was nothing that could be done for him and emphasizing that he would prefer for the resources to be directed to other victims of repression. After being sentenced to 16 years in prison, he committed suicide in a Rostov jail in December 2024. The face of this fallen anarchist comrade remains unknown to us. Solidarity groups do not even have a proper photograph of him, only a pixelated face from Russian mainstream media. Roman Shvedov. What Can Those Abroad Do for Russian Anarchist Prisoners? The most straightforward way to act in solidarity with Russian prisoners is by spreading information—for example, translating news and carrying out banner drops, graffiti, and other forms of direct actions. A great deal of news about Russian anarchist prisoners is available on the English section of the website of Autonomous Action, the former Russian Libertarian Communist federation, which is now working as a media project. The logo of Autonomous Action. With automatic translation tools available for free online, it is easy to write letters even when the prison censors only allow prisoners to receive letters in Russian. It is possible to write to a number of anarchist prisoners via the prisonmail.online service at a small cost; the service also provides the opportunity to receive replies. It is possible to write other prisoners via snail mail. A full list of addresses is available via the ABC Moscow website. Prisoner solidarity groups are in constant need of funds to pay for lawyers and other costs of imprisonment. You can donate to fundraising campaigns and projects that support prisoners—Anarchist Black Cross of Moscow, Fires of Freedom, and Solidarity Zone. It is also possible to donate to direct action initiatives such as BOAK using cryptocurrency. Last but not least, you cansupport the anarchists of Belarus (such as the Anarchist Black Cross of Belarus and Pramen) and Ukraine (such as Solidarity Collectives). All three countries are now locked in a common struggle against war and Russian authoritarian imperialism.

At the border with Mexico in Arizona, for the first time in history, a tree sit is blocking the construction of the border wall that Trump promised his voters. This wall is cutting a ragged wound across the precious and diverse ecosystems that defy the myth that the border represents a natural division between worlds. Two weeks ago, one protester decided it was time to block the machine that was about to destroy the last of four ancient cottonwood trees that stood in the way of the wall’s construction. A sheriff arrested him; he was released twelve hours later with no charges filed. This arrest galvanized the community. Less than two days later, friends installed a platform in the tree. Since then, it has been impossible to level this one part of the land because there is someone living in a tree and many supporters on the ground making sure everybody knows it. If the tree is felled, our friend in the tree is likely to be killed along with it. Knowing this, the general contractor, Fisher Sand and Gravel, as well as their private security, Vision Quest, the United States Army, Border Patrol, and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff have not yet been able to remove us from the shade of the old growth cottonwood that has likely stood here since before the land was acquired by the United States. We invite you to join us in refusing the border regime—whether that means coming here to Lochiel, Arizona or take action wherever you are. The border is everywhere that their networks of violence extend. What follows here is an account from within this emerging struggle. We have been experiencing a moment of relative stillness within a historical eddy. This summer has been full of fleeting conflagrations, weather hotter than we remember last year, and the feeling, never quite departing, that all of this can’t stay as precariously stable as it seems. The stability of the United States project has felt suffocating. We hear whispers of true resistance and see photos of joyful rupture, but our day-to-day lives have largely remained the same, with perhaps a few more friends, commitments, and Signal chats to keep up with than this time last summer. Gathered under the last of four ancient cottonwoods in the path of the new double border wall construction, we have found a moment of possibility. For now, we have managed to stop the regime in its tracks. The wall cannot be built where this grandmother stands so long as we, too, stand here. For over a year, environmentalists and local community members have been spending time together in Lochiel, Arizona. This town is all but abandoned. Many buildings here are becoming ruins, illustrating Lochiel’s peripheral relationship to the metropolis just a few hours to the northwest. These gatherings have built a compassionate and cohesive network that stretches far beyond the roads, buildings, fences, livestock, and ecology of the valley in which Lochiel is located. A few individuals have brought together many people to witness the splitting of this valley, and our world, apart. Lochiel sits directly adjacent to the US-Mexico border. One of the houses in the town, the old customs house for the now-closed port of entry, butts up so close to the border that the owner was concerned that it too would be demolished to make room for the double wall. People on both sides of the border fence live much the same way, raising cattle and singing together under the same shade of cottonwoods in the same valley, under the same bright blue dome of the sky. The many very old cottonwoods at the bottom of this valley used to reach across the border, creating a continuous canopy over the road. This high-elevation prairie ecosystem is one of the most biologically diverse in the world, with countless varieties of insects and grasses, flowering plants, and many threatened bird species along with coatis, coyotes, bears, and jaguars. All of this life is at risk here. A few years ago, in the fall and early winter of 2022, in the Coronado National Forest, which lies east of Lochiel, a similar composition of people resisted another attempt at building a border wall. This effort to block then-governor Doug Ducey’s container wall was ultimately successful. The participants employed much the same rhetoric and similar tactics. Yet today, the political climate has changed dramatically. In 2022, during the Biden years, Governor Ducey broke many laws to use shipping containers to “fill the gaps” left by Trump’s first ineffectual effort to build the wall he had promised his voters. Miles and miles of national forest—where the state government does not have jurisdiction—were clear-cut and graded without any permits or concern for the law or the environment. The project cost millions of dollars and inflicted untold impacts on this precious ecosystem. With protesters standing in front of the vehicles doing this construction, crews were forced to work through the night. Protesters responded by setting up a camp in the border road itself. But at that time, Ducey was only tacitly supported by the United States government. After two weeks of occupation, the courts finally moved to intervene. Ducey was stopped not only by blockaders, but by the authority of federal law. Today, in Lochiel, there is no lawsuit, no salvation from the courts to wait on. This wall, which is no less monstrous than that one, has been engineered for its purpose, and the law has been re-engineered as well. Under Trump’s second term, what was recently mere illegal buffoonery has become a blunt force supported by the law. All of us in Lochiel now, regardless of ideology, see that the power consolidated in the last four years indicates the state’s absolute disregard for life of all kinds. We are fighting for life. The state brings only death. A few hours west of Lochiel, a place called Quitobaquito Springs or A’al Vaipia by the O’odham people is also preparing for struggle against imminent border wall construction. The springs are a sacred ceremonial site for the O’odham people, some of whom lived there until the 1950s, when the national parks service annexed the land to form Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. This spring relies on ancient aquifers that the construction will likely deplete to such an extent that the spring will cease to exist. This desecration is an existential threat to the O’odham people’s traditional religious geography; it also spells extinction for wild populations of Sonoyta pupfish and springsnails, which can only be found in the waters of A’al Vaipia. Resistance is mounting in the form of O’odham-led prayer runs and endangered species lawsuits, among other efforts, but the sense of doom is growing as surveyors arrive and construction crews make preparations. Adjacent to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is Tohono O’odham Nation. The US border has divided O’odham land since the initial process of colonization. The government of Tohono O’odham Nation recently released an announcement declaring all border wall contractors trespassers. “No Trespassing” signs are being placed to notify contractors of their illegal entry of the land. The border has already desecrated O’odham land, and this wall would destroy sacred sites and make connection across the border even harder than it is already. Before, a construction project would have been compelled to address these issues, but the Real ID act has freed the government of the responsibility to conduct archeological and environmental studies. The border wall is materially dissolving all history, life, and culture that could get in its way. As I write, the fence that marks the border near Lochiel is being removed, panel by panel. I watch as the same machine that tore up three ancient cottonwoods in this valley carefully stacks up the fence panels. In a collective daydream encouraged by the heat of the sun, we imagined that this could the last time the valley will be divided by violence. That the valley could one day become whole again. That the mythology of the state might give way to land, sun, soil, abundance, freedom. This daydream ended as quickly as it started. The double wall now reaches almost to the edges of the roots of the fourth grandmother cottonwood that has been marked for death to make way for this monstrous infrastructure. Dust clouds from construction billow over her leaves as her roots are crushed by countless trucks and drowned by water stolen from the aquifer below in an attempt to keep the disturbed soil on the ground. On Monday, July 27, a local person decided to stand in front of the machinery that is supposed to take this last of four border trees out of its soil and all of our lives. For this act of care, he was arrested by Santa Cruz County Sheriff Hathaway’s deputies and put in jail for the day. He was released without any charges being filed. This act of bravery resounded in southern Arizona. As the news spread, many more people turned towards this small town with their hearts and minds alight. A window opened into the possibility of stopping the construction of the wall and properly grieving the ecosystem that is being split in two. Journalists, environmental NGOs, humanitarians, and anarchists flooded into the small town in response to this invitation. In less than two days, the network spread its roots far enough that it was possible to establish a tree sit in the arms of that last of four grandmothers. People rigged a platform in the top of the tree and raised a banner. Old cottonwoods are huge—and fragile. At any moment, any limb could drop without warning; the stress that this tree is enduring only makes that more likely. But that risk is worth it to the tree sitter and those supporting from below. This moment of freedom is worth the risk. The tree sit is both a symbol and an intervention. It draws on the activists’ experience with historic forest defense tactics and environmental militancy—and on a commitment to the more-than-human world. The tree sit in this particular place has done what few other tactics have been able to, completely halting the progression of the border wall construction in this small part of the San Rafael Valley. On three sides of the tree, construction is continuing, but still she stands with one of us held in her wide arms. Just after the sit went up, the sheriff was called once again. An employee of a private security firm called Vision Quest attempted to intimidate the sitter and the camp that blossomed under the tree. The sheriff did not come. We are told that he is also against the building of this wall. That day, it appeared that there was nothing that the private security guards, border patrol, or even the marines stationed at this part of the border driving back and forth in a golf cart could do to us without the sheriff’s cooperation—at least legally, at least for now. That night we walked in the border road easement without fear. In the two weeks since then, construction nearby has been largely disrupted due to people’s commitment to standing in the way as well as the miraculously full and regular monsoon season that has made the San Rafael valley so lush this year. The summer rain still falls here, unlike in Phoenix and Tucson. Lightning, downpours, and high winds have blessed us with breathing space in this moment of opportunity. No one knows what to do with us. While I can still feel the sun on my skin, the pressure of the heat of summer has lifted. Finally, we can run, play, and learn to defend the world of the real within the small power vacuum that we have created together under this cottonwood. We are at the edge of the false world that we are told we belong to, piercing its thick rubbery skin and feeling the breeze of freedom in the midst of the violence of ever-escalating border fascism. The margins and hinterlands of capital remain places that can offer enough space to move for those of us willing to puncture the illusion of state control. News from the margins quickly reached one of many centers of control. On Wednesday, August 5, we received news from Phoenix that some “anarchists and troublemakers of the metropolis” had carried out an action at the office of the general contractor awarded with the border construction project, Fisher Sand and Gravel. This company has made a billion dollars on the wall construction contract. The “troublemakers” trashed the office and posted a people’s eviction notice on the door, sending a message that just as the border is everywhere, there is a way for anyone to push back against it anywhere. The reportback from this action, originally posted on a regional noblogs site, begins, “The border is like an open wound.” There is no truer statement. Everywhere that the border is developed, maintained, and expanded, there is blood. We are only trying to heal this wound. Much of the mainstream media rhetoric around the tree sit relies on neoliberal understandings of what is possible. If only there were one wall under construction rather than two, these cottonwoods might have been saved. If only the border could be maintained more abstractly, it would seem less violent from afar. If only these cottonwoods could have all been saved, the ecosystem would have stayed intact. If only the construction would be stopped by active nests that Border Patrol stated would prevent the callous removal of the grandmothers standing in the way. The studies abound, and all of it is true. There is irreparable harm being enacted on this ecosystem by the wall and its construction. On the ground, many people have a simpler outlook. As the banner hanging on the still-standing tree reads, “BORDERS KILL.” We deny any line that divides us. We oppose any force that prevents people, animals, and water from moving and dwelling where they will. We refuse to believe that this wall will stand forever. We know that with our continued refusal, we can tear it down. We know that the roots of these cottonwood trees remain, although torn and slowly decaying, deeper than the wall is anchored by cement into the thick soil of the San Rafael Valley. The cicadas sing with us. They tell us that rain is coming to make the road too muddy for heavy machinery to pass. In this moment, we do not know how long the tree sitter will be able to remain in the grandmother cottonwood we’ve grown to love. Many leaves have grown yellow and fallen due to the stress, yet there is new growth at the tips of the smallest branches. At any moment, the sheriff may decide that it is time for him to do his job. Perhaps more willing arms of state power will be commanded to remove us. But we will be here to stop this intervention, to stop the extension of the wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, to stop the real world from being separated by an imaginary line imposed through raw violence. We welcome you to join us here in Lochiel; we invite you into the freedom we have found here, to fight the border where you are. We need you to help us to expand this space of possibility that we feel so clearly in this moment from the margins to the whole world. We know you can feel it too.

On July 4, 2025, roughly a dozen people participated in a demonstration at the Prairieland Detention Center, a facility serving Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At the conclusion of the demonstration, a participant named Benjamin Song saw a police officer aim a gun at a participant named Nathan Baumann and fired warning shots at the ground in response. Since then, police have arrested 22 people on widely publicized conspiracy and terrorism charges, subjecting many of them to long-term solitary confinement and other pressure tactics. Eight defendants who chose not to cooperate with the prosecution have been found guilty and sentenced to between 30 and 100 years in prison each, with one of them receiving a 30-year sentence simply for having moved a box of zines. The Prairieland prosecution is a flagship effort intended to criminalize opposition to fascism per se in line with the Trump administration’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7. The prosecution’s approach hinges on the idea that the defendants constitute an “antifa cell,” despite many of them not knowing each other at all. This is not unprecedented. On the contrary, it is a strategy of repression that is familiar elsewhere in the world, under even more authoritarian regimes. In Russia, for example, it has become common for officers from the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB, to use electrical shock torture to attempt to coerce arrestees suspected of anarchism into signing false confessions affirming the existence of invented conspiracies. The playbook is to fabricate an association, then pressure defendants to plead guilty, manufacturing evidence of the supposed conspiracy. In Russia, they do this with cattle prods; in the Prairieland case, they are attempting to accomplish the same thing via less flagrant means, including solitary confinement and threats. In the year since the demonstration at the Prairieland facility, federal agents have tried to expand on this precedent. Prosecutors continue to indict new defendants in the Prairieland case. In May 2026, three people in Spokane, Washington were convicted on felony conspiracy charges for protesting against Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. On June 16, federal agents carried out aggressive house raids across the Twin Cities, arresting twelve people and indicting fifteen on federal conspiracy charges. What is possible in Texas will not necessarily work in Minnesota. In parts of Texas, far-right and outright fascist state officials control much of the judicial bureaucracy and police, and have the support of much of the population; in Minnesota and other parts of the country, ICE and other elements of the Trump administration are so unpopular that even grand juries, long known as a tool that prosecutors can use for any purpose, sometimes refuse to indict arrestees. The local culture that prevails within the judicial infrastructure of different districts, the amount of leverage that local social movements exert, and the perspectives of the available jury pool all make a significant difference in the outcome of cases like these. The outcome of the first Prairieland trial should not intimidate us out of organizing and taking action; rather, it shows how high the stakes are. Both direct support for the defendants and general efforts to organize, popularize, and legitimize resistance can play a role in blocking federal efforts to normalize the Prairieland model. Even if the appeals courts show themselves to be just as corrupt as the courts that have convicted and sentenced Prairieland defendants, if we build a strong enough movement, whoever succeeds Donald Trump in power could be compelled to commute their sentences. If we withdraw from organizing, if we shrink from resistance, this will embolden the Trump administration and its supporters and they will intensify their attacks. Rather than permitting them to frighten us out of trusting each other, we must build deep personal ties and widespread community support in order to endure campaigns of repression. We can win this fight. What follows is a statement by Fire Ant Movement Defense. The Trial On June 23, witnesses across the country watched in horror as the non-cooperating defendants in the Prairieland trial were given staggering sentences in the most blatant case of political persecution in a generation. Like the Haymarket trial, the Red Scare, and the repression of the Black Panther Party before it, the Prairieland case has come to define a new era of state terror intended to crush dissent. It is critical to understand the conditions under which this trial took place. The defendants were humiliated, denied medical care, and repeatedly tortured by state officials throughout the duration of their custody. They were wheeled into court rooms shackled to chairs, forced to clean human feces off of cell walls, subjected to vile human rights offenses that reflect the complete immorality of the American judicial system. The point of these violations was both to punish and to coerce, in hopes that the defendants would turn on one another and abandon their values—the very existence of which this trial was designed to condemn. The majority of the defendants resisted these efforts, demonstrating incredible resilience in the face of overwhelming violence. However, others chose to forsake their values, reject their communities, and betray their comrades in acts of cowardly self-preservation. Without these cooperators, it is entirely possible that the Prairieland trial would have ended with almost all of the defendants winning their freedom. The Defendants Much of the state cooperation in the Prairieland trial was manufactured through torture and motivated by fear. It manifested in different forms, occurred in different degrees, and, like all matters of political importance, resists simple moral categorization. Of the nineteen defendants facing federal charges, five of them—Seth Sikes, John Thomas, Nathan Baumann, Lynette Sharp, and Susan Kent—took the stand at trial and condemned others to years in prison for their own benefit. Two additional defendants—Joy Gibson and Rebecca Morgan—took plea agreements. While these were non-cooperating pleas, the text of the deals affirmed the existence of a fictional “North Texas Antifa Cell,” which some in the movement have characterized as potentially damaging to other defendants. One other defendant, Meagan Morris, initially gave hours of testimony to federal agents, before rejecting cooperation, refusing a plea agreement, and standing trial with her comrades. All of these cases are materially different from each other. Taking the stand in a courtroom is not the same thing as giving an interview immediately after arrest; full-fledged cooperation is not the same as taking a plea deal that affirms the state’s fabricated narrative. We reject simplistic generalizations that frame all mistakes as unforgivable, rendering it impossible to create an off-ramp for those who have previously cooperated with the state to change course, make amends, and restore their commitment to struggle. Meagan Morris We believe that Meagan Morris made an indefensible choice in giving hours of testimony to federal agents. By corroborating John Thomas’s testimony, she contributed to the arrests of Rebecca Morgan, Benjamin Song, and Autumn Hill. After that, she ceased all cooperation, refusing further interviews. She did not take a plea deal. She did not take the stand against her codefendants. Many people will demand that she pay for her choice. We ask them to consider the ways in which she is already paying it. Despite her initial cooperation, the state was happy to punish her alongside the non-cooperating defendants after she chose to change course. For months, she has faced harassment, starvation, and humiliation like the other defendants. Other cooperators who continued betraying their values received sentences as short as 22 months—but she, rediscovering her courage, rejected that possibility. This does not erase what she did. The depth of her betrayal will be measured by the days, years, or decades that those who once called her a comrade spend in cages. Additionally, the end of Morris’s sentence will mark the beginning of another painful and complicated period when she will have to reckon with what accountability her community will demand for her choices. Morris has made the strongest course correction towards revolutionary solidarity that is possible in her position. Her refusal to cooperate further landed her a fifty-year sentence. If we believe that remorse, redemption, and renewal are possible, then Morris has committed herself to seeking them. If we do not, then we must ask ourselves what we can offer defendants who have erred but have yet to decide whether to continue to assist the state. If we cannot offer those who have begun to cooperate any incentive to stop doing so, that all but ensures that once someone starts cooperating, they will become a permanent addition to the state’s arsenal against us. There are lines that, once crossed, render return impossible. Baumann, Thomas, Sikes, Sharp, and Kent chose their side long ago. There are revolutionary contexts in which totalizing zero-tolerance policies are necessary. But at this moment, thousands of inexperienced new participants are flooding into the fight for liberation. We probably won’t be able to educate all of them before they find themselves in confrontations with the state. Some of them will experience intense repression designed to scare them into cooperating before they fully understand the political implications, the options available to them, or their basic rights. When they find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun, some may well say something they shouldn’t. If we immediately make permanent enemies of everyone who do so, this may further endanger others. On the Non-Cooperating Pleas Two defendants accepted pre-written plea deals confirming the state’s fictions. The text invents a fictional antifa cell, takes for granted that antifascist activity is “terrorism,” and argues that wearing black is proof of criminal intent, among other absurdities. After the defendants had spent months in torturous conditions, the state pushed a deadline for agreeing to the pleas under threat of still worse federal indictments. Both Rowan Gibson and Rebecca Morgan, who signed those pleas without giving interviews, have been sentenced to 15 years each. On an individual level, signing the pleas limited their options. Their potential defenses in regards to their state charges are weakened. The pleas could also be damaging for their codefendants. Some argued that the pleas would be levied against the defendants at trial, cited as proof that some participants agreed to language describing the fictionalized “antifa cell” and supposed plans for an “ambush.” As it turned out, at the federal trial, prosecutors relied more on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, but the pleas remain available to introduce when the state-level charges go to trial. In addition, the pleas are a liability for the movement as a whole. It has been clear since the Department of Justice’s first press release on July 8 that their chief goal is to use this case to set a precedent and establish a narrative. This is the core of their strategy, and these pleas help them to advance it. Rowan Gibson and Rebecca Morgan took these deals, despite the bleak outcomes, primarily because of vile jail conditions, mental and physical health problems, and pressure from their lawyers. Their plea deals offer a cautionary example of what can happen in the worst circumstances when defendants do not have enough collective legal support. If their lawyers had been willing to work with the defense committee, take advice from legal experts with a better understanding of the politics around the case, or enter joint defense agreements, these pleas could have been avoided. On the Defendants Who Testified for the State All five of the testifying witnesses have now been sentenced. Thomas and Sharp got just over nine years, Sikes and Kent got six, and Baumann got less than two. Across both of the courtrooms, on both sentencing dates, the conservative judges spoke explicitly about sending a message. As for the nine defendants who went to trial, their total of 500 years of prison time represents a clear threat: associate with this ideology in any way and we will bury you. But what message can we read in the disparities among the sentences of the five defendants who testified for the state? Sentencing for cooperating defendants has traditionally been based on the criminal acts they’re accused of, the timing and extent of their cooperation, and the amount of new and actionable information they provided. This case diverges from the historical precedent. Thomas was not present in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025. He began cooperating very early in the investigation after his house was raided, and consistently provided evidence following his arrest. His interview on July 12 led to Sharp’s arrest on the 13th, and his subsequent interview on the 14th led to the arrests of Song and Morgan on the 15th, as detailed in the criminal complaints against Rebecca Morgan and Susan Kent. Thomas’s cooperation also contributed to the arrest of Dario Sanchez. Thomas and Sharp pled to one count of material support for terrorism for sheltering Song. Ordinarily, harboring a fugitive can land someone up to a year in prison. In contrast, Sikes was present at the demonstration, armed, and lit fireworks, which the state argued are explosive devices. He began cooperating with the state in October or November 2025. Based on the timing of arrests, it seems unlikely that Sikes’ cooperation provided much additional actionable information. Baumann was present at the demo, stayed through the arrival of police lieutenant Thomas Gross, admitted to bringing spray paint, and is the only person on video damaging any property. He agreed to cooperate very early on, but knew none of the participants and could provide very little identifying information. Precedent would suggest that Baumann would get the heaviest sentence, while Sikes and Thomas would get less. In fact, the reverse occurred. Their sentences set a precedent overwriting the old norms, replacing the old criteria with a loyalty test. In testifying, both Thomas and Sikes willingly betrayed their values. Yet Thomas contradicted the state’s narrative under cross-examination, and Sikes held back on even the most basic key elements, such as the definition of anti-fascism. Baumann didn’t betray his beliefs; he apparently had none. Nor did he betray his comrades—he apparently had no comrades, either. Instead, he proved himself to be an enthusiastic vessel for the state’s most poisonous lies. The state’s legal argument for terrorism hinges on the property destruction that Baumann alone admitted to. In their flagship NSPM-7 test case, they were willing to let him off easy because he helped them to advance their agenda. NSPM-7 creates a carveout in the judicial system where thought crimes are more important than material acts. Effective repressive strategies are designed to target specific tactics of resistance, such as the emphasis that our political movements place on refusing to cooperate. This era of authoritarianism introduces a form of repression in which action is practically irrelevant, for it is ideology that is on trial. Previous judicial norms, flawed as they were, are being abandoned in favor of litigating the thoughts, beliefs, and orientations that the Trump regime believes pose a threat to its reign of terror. In this legal purgatory, action becomes irrelevant, evidence becomes optional, and cooperators are not rewarded for contributing to investigations so much as for their readiness to affirm outrageous lies. Conclusion The pages of revolutionary history are full of ordinary people who chose to embody courage, fortitude, and commitment, no matter the cost. They are equally full of people—like the cooperating defendants in this trial—who once claimed to believe in freedom, liberation, and struggle, but later proved that they cared more for themselves than for justice. We are enduring some of the worst authoritarianism that this country has seen in the past fifty years. The actions that people have taken in Prairieland, the Twin Cities, Los Angeles, and elsewhere remind us that even in the midst of killings, torture, and life sentences, radicals across this country will continue to choose the path of resistance, rejecting fear, even if it means risking everything. We recognize that experiencing repression is an inevitable consequence of striving for freedom in a social order that is tightening its grip on us. The Prairieland trial has shown us the very best and worst of our communities. Benjamin Song could die in prison for potentially saving Nathan Baumann’s life. Baumann will soon walk free for betraying Song’s. Neither one of these things had to be. We must hurry to adapt to this new era of repression. We must educate as many people as possible about the crucial importance of refusing to answer questions from police or federal agents; we must build awareness about grand juries and how to resist them; above all, we must establish stronger legal support infrastructure, including media outreach, to put at the disposal of everyone who may end up in the crosshairs of the state. Finally, we must continue to support the Prairieland defendants. This case is far from over; the appeals process remains ahead, and how that goes will shape state and federal policy. Repression destroys lives and rips apart families; it is designed to break us. But make no mistake—at its core, their system of violence relies less on what it can do to us than on what it can make us do to each other. Fire Ant Movement Defense is an anti-repression collective made up of former political defendants and members of defense committees. We believe in mass defense strategies and advise defendants and their supporters on how to fight their cases from a political angle. We are not lawyers. Through repeated experiences, we have gained skills in media work and in synergizing political and legal strategies. In every case, we work towards building a response to repression that approaches the judicial system as an arena where we can fight—and win.