

There’s a familiar tactic that shows up whenever power feels threatened: take a law meant to address real violence and stretch it until it becomes a cudgel against dissent. Lately, ICE has been invoking 18 U.S.C. § 111 as though it were a blanket prohibition against being seen, questioned, or protested. It isn’t. And pretending otherwise isn’t about public safety but rather fear. If people can be convinced that protesting cruelty is illegal simply because armed agents say so, then the work of silencing conscience is already done. Knowing the law, naming the lie, and understanding our rights is not just a legal exercise; it’s a moral one. And it’s one of the ways we stay safe while refusing to be quiet.
18 U.S.C. § 111 is a federal criminal statute titled “Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees.” It prohibits:
The key word here, legally and historically. is “forcibly.” We could also add the word “official” in there as well, given how ICE are routinely performing duties well outside their jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, federal prosecutors and the Department of Justice’s own manual make clear that the statute requires a forcible act—something that goes beyond peaceful presence or speech—to trigger criminal liability.
Many ICE agents have increasingly claimed that § 111 makes almost any contact or resistance illegal—including following them, filming them, or standing near them in protest. But that interpretation:
Put simply: telling someone “you cannot follow or film us or you’ll be charged under § 111” is a threat of enforcement that doesn’t match the elements of the statute itself.
Peaceful protest—including chanting, signs, observing, video-recording, and speaking out—is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. You have a constitutional right to:
Filming or documenting ICE operations from a lawful distance, without force or physical contact, is a protected activity and not a violation of § 111.
A real § 111 violation requires some form of force or threat of force against an officer’s official duties. Long v. United States and DOJ guidance have interpreted “force” to mean actual physical acts or credible threats that reasonably suggest harm or obstruction.
So actions more likely to trigger § 111 would resemble:
Mere presence, peaceful blocking (e.g., sit-ins), or photography—while it might lead to other local charges in some jurisdictions—does not meet § 111’s requirements.
To protest safely and avoid unlawful arrest:
Understanding the law honestly—not how it’s sometimes misquoted in the field—is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others while exercising your constitutional rights.
If this resource spoke to you—if it made you feel seen, challenged, or just a little less alone in a world slipping further into authoritarianism—please consider becoming a paid subscriber to The Quollective. We’re not backed by billionaires or corporate sponsors. We’re funded by people like you. People who believe in truth-telling, justice, and the power of art and intellect to fight back.
Your monthly or yearly subscription helps us amplify the voices that white Christian nationalism wants to silence—historians, journalists, queer and Black creators, poets, satirists, and ex-theologians who know this beast from the inside.
If you believe in what we’re doing, don’t just read. Stand with us. [Subscribe now.]