This piece traces a grim pattern: violent attempts on President Trump and how heated rhetoric from prominent left-of-center voices has repeatedly framed him and his supporters as existential threats. It walks through early and recent attempts, names public figures who used extreme labels, and argues that words matter when political debate turns into dehumanization. The goal here is to highlight the recurring cycle and push for accountability and a return to debate over demonization. The article insists Americans insist on a safer political climate where ideas win or lose in the marketplace, not on the street.
This isn’t the first time someone tried to assassinate President Trump. Long before the most recent incidents, individuals with violent intent acted after weeks or months of fevered commentary painting opponents as monsters rather than rivals. That pattern matters because it shows a cultural shift: when leaders and media normalize extreme language, some people follow it to violent ends.
Some early attempts are easy to forget but they set the tone. On June 18, 2016, Michael Steven Sandford tried to grab a police officer’s pistol during a Trump speech at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino in order to shoot him, and on September 6, 2017, Gregory Lee Leingang stole a forklift and tried to ram Trump’s motorcade. In both cases the attempts followed sustained attacks in political discourse that reduced an opponent to a single dangerous caricature.
Prominent Democrats and commentators used language that went beyond disagreement and into character assassination. One high-profile critic labeled him a “fascist demagogue.” Others said Trump was giving “safe harbor to Nazis” and “white supremacists,” language that is powerful and incendiary when repeated across media platforms.
The rhetoric never stayed calm for long. Officials later called for unity and for the temperature to be lowered, only for the harsh labels to resume days or weeks later. That cycle—heat, tragedy, perfunctory calls for calm, return to heat—has repeated itself enough times to be troubling.
More recent episodes only reinforced the pattern. In July 2019, a sitting senator called Trump “worse than a racist,” and in September 2022 a leading voice declared, “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Campaign spokespeople even used language invoking Hitler, saying Trump “channeled his role models as he parroted Adolf Hitler.”
These labels are not abstract. They feed a public mood where opponents are described as enemies of the nation. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly paints Trump as a fascist threat, and commentators have argued that a “Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable,” warning that it would become harder and more dangerous to stop “by any means, legal or illegal.” Those exact words were used and they carry weight.
The rhetoric preceded real violence. On July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks fired shots at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, grazing the president’s ear and killing firefighter Corey Comperatore. In September 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh was arrested hiding in the bushes with a rifle near a golf course where Trump was present. Most recently, someone tried to strike at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
After tragedies, the familiar calls arise to “lower the temperature” and condemn violence in generic terms. Yet within days some columnists and public figures returned to the same language that had helped poison the well: calling opponents “fascist threats,” likening them to dictators, or labeling them with the worst possible epithets. That makes the condemnation feel hollow and the pattern dangerously predictable.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination last year was a sobering escalation. Within weeks of his death, commentators doubled down on accusations, repeating claims that he was a white supremacist and attacking anyone who mourned him. Within a month, Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) Kirk’s views “vile.” Those reactions showed how quickly some leaders revert to demonization even after violence.
The cycle breeds conspiracy and confusion, with “false flag” theories proliferating as people try to make sense of repeated attacks and half-hearted condemnations. That confusion helps no one and obscures the root problem: political speech has real consequences when leaders and influential media turn opponents into existential threats rather than electoral rivals.
Americans across the political spectrum should insist on a different approach: robust debate over policy, not dehumanizing labels that stoke violence. Political violence has no place in a constitutional republic, and words matter when the rhetoric comes from the top. It’s time for leaders to be honest about their role in lowering the heat and to choose argument over demonization now.
https://x.com/repsherrill/status/1969094290304328100?s=46&t=ZTypkkQT_qdqnzD8bAmCsQ
