The scene in Portland — a handful of protesters in neon leotards and tights doing an 80s-style workout outside an ICE facility while blasting Billy Joel — drew national attention and a sharp White House reaction, with critics calling the display “cringeworthy” and many conservatives questioning whether this sort of theater helps or hurts a cause that claims to want serious reform.
What happened was simple and bizarre: a small group assembled near an enforcement site and staged an aerobics-style routine that looked straight out of a retro gym video. They wore bright colors, capes, and leg warmers, and they moved to recognizable tunes instead of delivering policy arguments or organizing a focused campaign. From a Republican perspective, the spectacle undercut the gravity of immigration enforcement and turned public debate into a punchline.
For those watching, the optics mattered more than the intent. Protests that lean into costume and choreography risk reinforcing the idea that the organizers are more interested in attention than in actionable solutions. Conservatives argue that if you want change at the border or in detention practices, you need strategy, not costumes, and that theatrical displays make it easier for opponents to dismiss legitimate grievances.
Katie Jerkovich covers politics, culture, and entertainment for RedState and previously wrote at The Daily Wire and The Daily Caller.
Supporters of the stunt insist it was expressive speech meant to draw eyes to a facility and spark conversation about immigration enforcement. That’s a legitimate tactic in a free society, and people have every right to demonstrate however they choose. Still, many on the right say the protesters missed an opportunity to frame their message in a way that could sway fence-sitters or produce honest debate.
Media coverage amplified the moment, turning a dozen people into a national story and prompting comments up to the White House level. When officials call an action “cringeworthy” it signals a broader concern about effectiveness and messaging, not just taste. For conservative audiences, the reaction confirmed a long-standing frustration: cultural stunts rarely translate into policy wins.
There’s also a question of priorities and proportionality. Immigration and border enforcement are complex, with real consequences for communities and public safety. From a Republican viewpoint, protesting in costume at a detention center can be seen as trivializing those complexities instead of engaging lawmakers, voters, or the courts with evidence and clear proposals. The contrast between theatrical protest and legislative or legal action highlights different philosophies about how change should be pursued.
Beyond the immediate event, this episode feeds into a larger debate about activist tactics and how movements build credibility. Conservatives often point out that enduring political victories come from disciplined organizing, persuasive messaging, and an ability to win elections or influence legislation. When activism becomes performance, skeptics worry it substitutes optics for outcomes and alienates potential allies who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.
That said, the protestors got what they wanted in one respect: attention. Viral moments cut through in a fragmented media landscape, and images of neon leotards outside an ICE facility are hard to ignore. The counterargument is that attention without a sustainable strategy is fleeting, and that policymakers respond to sustained pressure backed by concrete demands rather than isolated spectacles.
What should follow is a conversation about tactics and effectiveness. If the goal is to change policy, then organizers need to pair visibility stunts with clear asks, legislative proposals, or legal challenges that can translate public sentiment into change. From the Republican perspective, turning protests into policy requires discipline and focus, not just flash and nostalgia.
In the end, the mix of satire, nostalgia, and protest revealed how polarized our public square has become, where performance and policy collide in the same headlines. Whether you see it as harmless expression or a misstep that weakens a message, the incident is a reminder that the way a movement presents itself can determine whether it persuades or provokes dismissal.
Add comment