Republicans call out Democrats for comparing violent Minneapolis protests to Iranians fighting real oppression, arguing the comparison insults actual victims and ignores crimes by illegal immigrants and federal law.

Left-wing comparisons of American protests to classic works of fiction or distant struggles have become routine, but some recent comparisons crossed a line. Rep. Jamie Raskin even tried to liken the current era to the Star Wars series Andor, a comparison that many found off the mark. These pop culture analogies are usually goofy, but they rarely insult people who are risking life and liberty for real freedom.

Ken Martin, chair of the Democrats in Minnesota, moved from goofy to outrageous when he equated the violent, lawless protesters in Minneapolis with Iranians fighting a brutal theocratic regime. His message said, “In Iran, brave protestors confront a far-right theocratic regime that crushes dissent and denies basic freedoms. Here at home, tens of thousands are marching after the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good- demanding justice, transparency, and an end to an unchecked federal force that takes lives and tears families apart,” Martin wrote. “Solidarity across borders means opposing authoritarian power everywhere and defending the right to live free from fear and state violence.”

That is not just sloppy rhetoric. It is an insult to people in Iran who face real, murderous state power every day. The Iranian theocracy has stripped women of rights, enforces harsh moral rules, and in one documented case in 2022 a woman was beaten to death by morality police for refusing to wear a hijab in public. Reports indicate at least 500 Iranians have been killed in the recent unrest, and the regime has restricted internet access to suppress dissent.

Pointing out the difference is not a denial of American grievances. It is a refusal to collapse distinct realities into a political talking point. The Minneapolis unrest followed an ICE shooting, and emotions run high, but violent lawbreaking and attacks on federal agents are not comparable to people facing state execution or systematic suppression. Context matters, and raw moral equivalence does a disservice to victims of real oppression.

On the ground in Minnesota, facts complicate the narrative activists push. One woman was shot after she used her vehicle as a deadly weapon against ICE agents, and local leaders have a duty to denounce attacks on law enforcement. Meanwhile, Democrats who complain about families “being ripped apart” rarely acknowledge the American families destroyed by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. The article listed names like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin as victims whose losses are real and permanent.

For many conservatives, the broader question is about enforcement and fairness. When federal law applies, it applies to every city, including Minneapolis, and 77 million Americans voted in support of policies and leaders who promised to restore order. President Trump is the president of the United States, and federal authority does not stop at city limits. Turning violent resistance into a moral equivalence with foreign dissidents stretches credibility.

Martin doubled down when critics pushed back, writing, “That’s authoritarian behavior—anywhere. If you’re rushing to defend it, maybe the problem isn’t the comparison. Trump keeps pushing it, Americans aren’t buying it, and Minneapolis won’t be silent.” That defense did not calm critics. Social media pushed back sharply, with one user writing, “It’s not a question of if your analogy makes people angry, it’s a question of if your analogy makes you look stupid… which it does. Very very stupid.”

Republicans see a pattern: Democrats use high-minded language to mask tolerance for chaos when it suits political aims. That tolerance becomes especially grating when the same party ignores the victims of illegal immigration or refuses to condemn violence aimed at federal officers. The contrast between moral outrage for foreign oppression and selective concern at home creates a credibility problem for party leaders.

There is also a foreign policy angle in this debate, one that reaches back decades. Some conservatives blame past administrations for failing to confront regimes like Iran’s, an argument that feeds frustration with what they call weak responses to global authoritarianism. Whether or not one accepts that history, invoking Iran’s real suffering as a rhetorical prop for local protests risks trivializing life-or-death struggles elsewhere.

Anger at Democrats for these comparisons does not mean denying problems at home. It means demanding a better standard of public rhetoric and a consistent defense of victims everywhere. Many on the right are tired of theatrical equivalencies that elevate protest theater while ignoring victims of violent crime and the rule of law.

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.