The Three-Front War: How the COC, TAC, and REA Are Reshaping American Civic Debate

In less than a week, three distinct forces have emerged around the controversy over the Rights Enforcement Agency, and the battle between them is already reshaping the boundaries of American political debate.

The three factions:

THE CIVIC ORDER COALITION (COC) represents the institutional response. Backed by police unions, prosecutors, and conservative lawmakers, the COC frames the REA as a domestic terrorist threat and has proposed federal legislation to criminalize its activities. Their argument: the rule of law requires that accountability happen through legitimate channels, and vigilante organizations — however well-intentioned — undermine the institutions that hold society together.

THE AUTONOMOUS COLLECTIVE (TAC) represents the radical critique. A network of anarchist collectives and mutual aid organizations, TAC views the REA as "controlled opposition" — a top-down, hierarchical organization that replicates the power structures it claims to oppose. Their argument: real change comes from horizontal community organizing, not from shadow agencies with corporate infrastructure and matching uniforms.

THE REA itself has said nothing since either group emerged. Its silence has become its most powerful statement.

What's remarkable about this three-way dynamic is how thoroughly it scrambles traditional political categories.

THE RIGHT IS SPLIT. The COC's law-and-order message resonates with many conservatives, but the REA's critique of government overreach and institutional corruption speaks to a deep strain of conservative philosophy. Retired U.S. Marshal Harlan Briggs' op-ed in this publication — arguing that the REA exists because law enforcement failed to police itself — has become the most-shared article in Dead Drop history. Briggs is not a liberal. He's not even a moderate. He's a lifelong conservative who is saying, essentially: the REA is doing what we should have done ourselves.

Libertarians, meanwhile, are almost universally sympathetic to the REA. "An organization that holds government accountable without using government power? That's the most libertarian thing I've ever heard," wrote Cato Institute fellow David Nyström in a widely circulated thread.

THE LEFT IS SPLIT. TAC's criticism of the REA as hierarchical and self-appointed resonates with academic leftists and longtime organizers who distrust any structure that resembles authority. But community organizations that have directly benefited from REA actions — like the Portland Tenants Coalition — argue that ideological purity is a luxury their members can't afford.

"The Autonomous Collective can critique the REA from their co-working space," said coalition leader Daniela Reyes. "My members were about to get tear-gassed. Theory didn't stop that. Amber vests did."

THE CENTER IS ENGAGED. Perhaps the most surprising development is the level of centrist engagement. A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted this week found that 47% of Americans who identify as "moderate" view the REA "somewhat favorably" — higher than either self-identified liberals (41%) or conservatives (23%). The REA appears to have tapped into a deep centrist frustration with institutional dysfunction that transcends partisanship.

What we're witnessing is not a left-right debate. It's a debate about institutional legitimacy, the limits of civil disobedience, and who gets to define accountability in a democracy where the accountability mechanisms have failed.

The REA didn't create these questions. But by showing up in amber vests and manila envelopes, they forced every American to answer them.

And so far, nobody has a good answer that satisfies everyone.