What The Free Press and the Far Right Are Saying About the LA Riots

 So, when the riots in Los Angeles broke out again in June 2025—fueled by clashes over immigration raids, ICE tactics, and rising political tensions—media coverage split fast. Mainstream liberal outlets mostly highlighted the peaceful protestors, emphasizing immigrant rights, over-policing, and emotional stories of families torn apart. But on the other side, voices like The Free Press, the media company launched by Bari Weiss, told a very different story—and it’s one a lot of far-right thinkers are latching onto.


The Free Press isn’t like Fox News yelling about "thugs" or calling for martial law, but it definitely leans conservative-libertarian. Their whole deal is saying, “Hey, we’re not buying the mainstream spin. There’s more going on here.” And when it comes to LA, they’ve been putting out a message that focuses on chaos, media distortion, and political fallout.


One of their video reporters, Austyn Jeffs, walked the streets during the LA protests and shot footage of both peaceful marchers and people torching cars and throwing rocks. His point wasn’t that everyone was violent—it was that the situation was complicated, and the mainstream media was only telling half the story. He framed it like this: if you’re just watching CNN or reading the New York Times, you might think this is a calm civil rights march. But if you watch what The Free Press is showing, you’ll see there’s real disorder on the ground.


In one particularly blunt piece, Ruy Teixeira wrote that the LA riots were basically a campaign ad for Donald Trump. That’s a huge claim, but it fits with how The Free Press is positioning itself—critical of both the chaos on the streets and the Democratic response to it. They argue that all this unrest plays perfectly into Trump’s law-and-order narrative. If people see cities burning and cops retreating, and if they feel like the government isn’t in control, Trump benefits—especially among independents and moderates.


Another writer, Leighton Woodhouse, warned that what’s happening in LA feels like “the prelude to something far worse.” That’s kind of the vibe across the board in The Free Press's coverage: this isn’t just about LA. It’s a sign that things in the country are unraveling—people are losing trust in the media, the police, the government, and each other.


Now, it’s important to point out that The Free Press doesn’t go full conspiracy mode. They’re not blaming George Soros or inventing antifa death squads. But they are very clearly skeptical of the progressive narrative and want readers to see these riots as symptoms of bigger social dysfunctions—and as proof that liberal leaders aren’t handling things well.


This kind of coverage stands in contrast to progressive voices who emphasize the role of police provocation or ICE’s aggressive tactics. Instead, The Free Press leans on a message of media distrust, moral panic, and institutional failure, with a heavy undertone of “this is why Trump might win again.”


In short: The Free Press and similar far-right-leaning platforms are painting the LA riots not just as a story of unrest, but as a political wake-up call. They’re not cheerleading violence—but they’re very much using it to criticize liberal leadership and amplify the idea that Trump’s “tough guy” approach might be the only thing that brings order back.


 Sources


Jeffs, Austyn. “WATCH: Who Are the LA Protesters?” The Free Press, 9 June 2025. https://www.thefp.com


The Free Press. “Who Is Burning Cars and Throwing Rocks in LA? Plus…” The Free Press, 10 June 2025. https://www.thefp.com


Teixeira, Ruy. “The LA Riots Are a Trump Ad.” The Free Press, 10 June 2025. https://www.thefp.com


Woodhouse, Leighton. “This Isn’t Over.” The Free Press, 10 June 2025.


Stewart, Emily. “The LA Protests Reveal What Actually Unites the Trump Right.” Vox, 11 June 2025. https://www.vox.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When Duty Collided with Conscience

Image
On July 1, 2026, Air Force Major Jason Watson made a decision that will likely define the rest of his military career. While wearing his Air Force service uniform, he stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol holding a sign calling for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also publicly criticized the administration's military actions, saying he believed they were unconstitutional. By his own statements, Watson believed he had a moral duty to speak out. He knew there would probably be consequences, but he chose to protest anyway as an act of civil disobedience. One thing that has confused a lot of people is why he was arrested. Some have said he had permission to be there and then somehow lost it. That's not exactly what happened. Representative Al Green escorted Watson onto the House steps. Under Capitol rules, demonstrations are allowed there only under certain conditions, including when a member of Congres...
Read more

Trump’s Iran Strikes: Unconstitutional, Dangerous, and a Christian Call for Accountability

Donald Trump has proven to be a dangerously impulsive leader, and his recent actions reveal a pattern of narcissistic decision-making that puts the country and the world at risk. From unilateral military strikes to flouting constitutional processes, his behavior demonstrates a disregard for law, accountability, and the perspectives of allies. Leadership of this magnitude demands wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to the rule of law — qualities Trump has repeatedly shown he cannot exercise responsibly. For the safety and stability of the nation, he must be removed from the office of the President of the United States as quickly as possible, along with enablers like JD Vance and Mike Johnson, whose support empowers these reckless tendencies. Donald Trump — in the name of the United States — recently launched military strikes against Iran, escalating a conflict that already threatens global stability and regional security. These actions were taken without formal authorization from Congre...
Read more

DHS’s Subpoena Campaign Threatens First Amendment Freedoms

In a constitutional federal representative democracy like the USA, government officials are supposed to protect the rights of the people, not intimidate them. Yet the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, is aggressively trying to identify Americans who criticize ICE and its enforcement actions. This is not just an overreach; it is a direct attack on the First Amendment. DHS has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to major tech platforms, including Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord, demanding the names, email addresses, and other identifying information of users who post critical content about ICE¹. These subpoenas do not require prior judicial approval, allowing the agency to bypass the usual legal safeguards and target critics with alarming impunity². This is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it chills dissent. First Amendment law clearly protects both speech and the anonymity of speakers. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that anon...
Read more