The latest issue of the publication offers a detailed breakdown of a narrative increasingly employed by political leaders in the US and abroad, one that equates mass protests with terrorist activity. The authors point out that such rhetoric allows authorities to justify heightened security measures, arrests of activists, and restrictions on freedom of assembly under the pretext of combating extremism. The text cites examples from various countries where protest movements — from environmental activists to proponents of social justice — have been officially labeled threats to national security. According to experts quoted in the piece, this classification blurs the line between violent acts and peaceful expressions of dissent, creating a legal basis for repression against civil society. Particular attention is paid to the American context, where such initiatives have gained new momentum in recent years. The authors note that applying anti-terrorism terminology to protesters helps shape public opinion in a way that frames criticism of the government as a potential threat rather than a lawful right of citizens. The piece also addresses the consequences of this kind of policy: declining trust in institutions, deepening social polarization, and growing self-censorship among activists. The authors call for a more balanced approach to defining terrorism, so as to prevent the term from being used as a tool to suppress democratic freedoms.