Staff Reports
A UCLA professor has made headlines with a rather stunningly misguided sentiment regarding President Donald Trump. It appears that Peter Arenella, a supposed expert in criminal law at the University of California, Los Angeles, believes that the “only hope” for America is some form of militaristic coup against its democratically-elected leader. Yes, the irony is thick enough to spread on toast.
Arenella’s alarming call for “violent resistance” by the military against Trump is framed around his fear of an alleged alliance between the U.S. and Russia, which he seems to think is just around the corner. Despite the consistent rhetoric from some corners of the left claiming Trump is an enemy of democracy, a solid majority of Americans re-elected him in 2024, effectively dismissing these doomsday scenarios. Perhaps Arenella missed the memo that deep-seated fears of tyranny haven’t manifested into anything remotely tangible—save for some academic hysteria.
The professor took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to express his dire outlook, lamenting the military’s reluctance to engage in politically charged interventions. One could argue that his enthusiasm for violence as a solution speaks more about his own disconnect from reality rather than any legitimate threat he perceives. Ironically, it’s the left that frequently accuses Trump of authoritarianism, yet here’s Arenella suggesting a military coup as a solution. It certainly raises eyebrows about who the real threat to democracy is.
In the fallout from Arenella’s reckless social media outburst, many users promptly demanded accountability from the university. Suggestions that UCLA would face repercussions akin to those levied on Columbia University for far less incendiary comments have emerged. Users expressed their outrage, suggesting that Arenella should not only face disciplinary action but also face consequences for inciting such dangerous rhetoric. Responses included calling for federal funding cuts to UCLA and questioning how a law professor could advocate for a violent coup while somehow maintaining credibility.
After realizing that his incendiary comments had turned into a political firestorm, Arenella attempted to walk back his words. He expressed regret over his suggestion, claiming he did not genuinely support a coup and recognized that his inflammatory remarks were, well, inflammatory. It’s amusing to witness how quickly the narrative changes when one is met with backlash. The professor seemed to take a good hard look at the potential ramifications of his statements—both philosophical and professional. It’s likely that his regret is rooted more deeply in a fear of losing his job than in any sort of ideological epiphany.
In the twisted world of academia, where hyperbole has become the norm, Arenella’s remarks stand as a vivid reminder of how far removed some educators are from the realities of political discourse today. While the liberal elite may laugh off concerns of an anti-democratic coup, he and his ilk provide a stark reminder of how dangerously unhinged the left can be, as they advocate for tactics that directly undermine the very democracy they pretend to defend. It’s a classic case of projection worthy of a compendium of academic absurdities that only seems to grow with time.
