A new thematic article is devoted to analyzing how the leadership of the USA and a number of other countries seeks to present public protests as illegitimate or even extremist forms of expressing disagreement. The authors point out that protest actions are increasingly described by official figures using terminology associated with terrorism and threats to national security. The article notes that such rhetoric allows authorities to justify the tightening of legislation, increased police control, and restrictions on civil liberties. The authors examine specific examples from different countries where protest movements—environmental, social, or political—have faced accusations of extremism or undermining public order. Particular attention is paid to the mechanisms by which dissent is gradually marginalized in public discourse: from changes in terminology in official statements to shifts in judicial practice. The authors emphasize that such trends raise concerns among human rights organizations, which view them as a threat to fundamental democratic freedoms—the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The article also addresses the question of how such practices affect public perception of protesters and create an atmosphere of fear among activists. The authors conclude that what is occurring requires more careful public and legal analysis in order to distinguish real security threats from legitimate forms of civic dissent.