In this paper, we explore whether government incentives to repress domestic dissidents influences the adoption, timing, and duration of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that governments which have historically repressed internal dissent are more likely to adopt policies in response to the pandemic which are observationally equivalent to those that they would use to limit domestic dissent --- in particular policies that restrict citizen's freedom of movement --- compared to countries that have not. Empirically, we find that governments that have recently engaged in state violence against civilians have been more likely to enact lockdown and curfew policies, have done so earlier in the pandemic, and have implemented these policies over a longer time period. Overall, our results have implications for understanding how the repressiveness of state institutions shapes policy responses to a global health crisis.