Guest author is David Berez, a retired 20-year East Windsor (NJ) police officer and author of the book, "A Resilient Life: A Cop's Journey in Pursuit of Purpose." He is also a member of our organization's Law Enforcement Advisory Council.
As law enforcement agencies navigate an era of heightened political polarization and recurring civil unrest, a new question is emerging: Who are the Red Rabbits, and what role might they play in future demonstrations across America?
The Red Rabbits Security Commission is a self-described security and community-defense initiative associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Publicly available information indicates that members receive training in protest security, crowd management, communications, first aid, de-escalation, and self-defense. Supporters frame these efforts as necessary preparation to protect demonstrators. Critics see something more concerning: the development of organized security structures capable of influencing events on the street — potentially in ways that escalate rather than calm unrest.
Even the group’s name offers insight into its self-image. According to DSA-affiliated publications, the Red Rabbits draw their name from Richard Adams’ Watership Down, citing a line from the book’s rabbit mythology: “Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.” Supporters interpret this as a lesson in resilience and community defense. But law enforcement professionals should note the deeper symbolism: an emphasis on organization, deception, adaptability, and survival against perceived enemies — including police. Whether one agrees with the movement’s politics or not, the choice of name reflects a group that sees itself as operating in opposition to larger institutions and believes success depends on coordination, discipline, and strategic action.
That perspective alone does not indicate criminal intent. It does, however, offer valuable insight into how the organization understands its mission — and why police agencies should monitor its evolution.
At present, there is no evidence that the Red Rabbits constitute an armed insurgency or terrorist organization. But history teaches that law enforcement should pay close attention whenever political movements begin developing parallel security structures. Such groups often emerge from a belief that traditional policing institutions are either incapable of providing security or are themselves part of the problem.
This concern is particularly relevant given the DSA’s broader ideological framework. Many socialist and Marxist traditions have historically viewed police as instruments of state power that preserve existing political and economic systems. While not every DSA member embraces such views, anti-police rhetoric has become increasingly common in some activist circles, especially following high-profile use-of-force incidents and debates over immigration enforcement.
For law enforcement leaders, the central issue is not ideology. The issue is how ideology translates into capability, intent, and conduct.
Agencies should be asking several key questions. Are these groups simply providing protest marshals and medical support, or are they developing command-and-control structures capable of directing large crowds? Are members being trained in lawful de-escalation, or are they preparing for physical confrontation with law enforcement? Are communications systems being established for safety, or for coordinated resistance, staged materials, and kinetic action?
These distinctions matter.
The Constitution protects speech, assembly, and political advocacy. Americans have every right to organize, protest, and advocate for social change. They do not have the right to commit violence or resist lawful police orders. Likewise, the Supreme Court has affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. But constitutional protections do not extend to assaulting officers, inciting violence, interfering with lawful operations, or organizing private paramilitary activity in violation of federal and state law.
Some observers have suggested that groups such as the Red Rabbits may eventually attempt to characterize themselves as a “well regulated militia” under the Second Amendment. Historically, however, militias operated under governmental authority or legal oversight. Self-appointed political organizations have not been recognized by courts as constitutional militias simply because they train, organize, or possess firearms. Still, political organizations often develop their own interpretations of constitutional language, shaped by their ideological goals.
That distinction will likely become increasingly important as political activism and security operations continue to overlap.
So how should law enforcement prepare?
First, agencies should focus on intelligence and threat assessment rather than ideology. The goal is not to monitor political beliefs but to identify indicators of unlawful activity — including organized violence, tactical planning, weapons training, and coordinated efforts to obstruct police operations.
Second, departments should continue investing in crowd-management training, mobile field force operations, and interagency intelligence-sharing. Recent events in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and New Jersey demonstrate how quickly civil unrest can evolve and overwhelm agencies lacking coordinated response plans.
Third, police leaders must be proactive in public communications. In today’s information environment, the battle for public perception begins long before officers arrive on scene. Agencies should communicate clearly, document enforcement actions, and emphasize their commitment to protecting both public safety and constitutional rights — separate from the political rhetoric of elected officials.
Finally, elected leaders must recognize that effective policing is essential to a free society. They should condemn violence regardless of ideology and avoid rhetoric that delegitimizes the officers tasked with maintaining public order.
The rise of organizations such as the Red Rabbits does not necessarily signal the emergence of a militant movement. But it does represent a development worthy of professional attention. Law enforcement agencies that remain vigilant, intelligence-driven, and committed to constitutional policing will be best positioned to address whatever challenges emerge next.
The goal is neither alarmism nor complacency. It is preparedness — grounded in history, informed by intelligence, and supported by a professional law enforcement community and an engaged public.
Comments