By Shaina Cole | Commentary, Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Political speech extends well beyond the moment it’s expressed. Words travel. They settle into public discourse and shape how authority, disagreement, and risk are understood over time.
Research shows that rhetoric does more than mirror tension. In certain conditions, it redirects it—especially when government leaders frame conflict in threatening or moral terms.
That context helps explain why the White House published an article titled “57 Times Sick, Unhinged Democrats Declared War on Law Enforcement.” The article quotes Democrat state governors, congressmen, and other public figures whose statements the administration has characterized as contributing to a hostile environment for federal law enforcement agencies, especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House links them to a period it says included rising assaults on officers, threats, and vehicle rammings during federal operations, citing a reported 1,300% increase in vehicular attacks on ICE since President Trump took office, alongside a 58% spike against CBP officers.
The article is openly political.
That point is not disputed.
What matters is how the language functions once it enters the public sphere.
Political communication scholars describe elite cues as signals citizens use to judge how serious a conflict is and how far opposition should go. When officials rely on language associated with danger, war, or authoritarian imagery, emotional responses often intensify first.
Behavior can follow later.
Studies keep showing this same trend in academic work on how leaders’ scary talk ties into people getting okay with stuff that’s out of bounds or even illegal.
For instance, a 2025 Springer study on elite rhetoric found that co-partisan leaders’ use of violent language boosts support for violence through mechanisms like fearmongering.
Much of the White House compilation centers on rhetoric that goes beyond criticism and instead frames federal law enforcement as illegitimate or dangerous. Authoritarian analogies and calls for resistance fall into a category of political language most closely associated with heightened threat perception and blurred boundaries between lawful dissent and confrontation.
Some of the most striking examples come from state-level officials. The White House’s list, though pointed, captures only a slice of the picture. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find additional instances emerging almost daily—some as fresh as yesterday—feeding into the same stream of discourse that shapes public tensions.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, as quoted in the compilation, compared ICE to the “modern-day Gestapo” and said Minnesota was “at war” with federal officers. Framed that way, enforcement activity is placed alongside historical secret police associated with repression and state terror.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is cited for likening ICE to “secret police” and urging people to “push back” against the agency. In the White House’s framing, that language moves past policy disagreement and toward resistance—an important distinction during active enforcement operations, when vague calls to action may be interpreted without clear limits.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker appears in the compilation for invoking “Nazi Germany” in reference to ICE enforcement. The White House presents the remark as part of a broader pattern of comparisons between federal law enforcement and authoritarian regimes, language shown to strongly influence perceptions of legitimacy and danger.
At the federal level, the article highlights statements from Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who is quoted describing ICE operations as a “reign of terror” and accusing officers of terrorizing communities. The framing casts routine enforcement as ongoing violence rather than contested public policy.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon is also featured for likening ICE operations to “fascism” and claiming officers are “doing nothing” but “terrorizing our communities.” The White House reads this as crossing a line: beyond mere opposition to ICE, it’s a full-on moral takedown of the officers themselves.
The White House gives Rep. Ilhan Omar a prominent spot in the list. According to the compilation, she referred to ICE as “state violence,” described officers as “vile and beyond cruel,” and said, “Abolishing ICE is not enough. They must be held accountable.” As presented by the White House, the language signals more than opposition to the agency.
It conveys moral condemnation of those carrying out its work.
None of this requires assuming intent.
What the evidence shows is narrower—and more careful. Over time, repeated portrayals of institutions as illegitimate begin to change how people evaluate events. Confidence erodes. Divisions sharpen.
Time and again, the evidence ties exposure to this kind of threatening or delegitimizing talk to higher tolerance for political violence and other illegal moves—even if nobody’s spelling out a direct call to violence.
The peer-reviewed study out of Springer illustrates through careful testing, repeated threatening talk from one’s own party leaders heightens tolerance for violence by playing on fears of the opposing side.
And that’s where the real stakes come into view.
When leaders amplify charged language but stop short of clearly separating lawful protest from unlawful conduct, uncertainty grows. In tense moments, that uncertainty can shape how situations unfold on the ground.
Clarity—or the lack of it—becomes consequential.
Perceived Consequences and Crowd Behavior
Beyond rhetoric, attention turns to how perceived consequences influence behavior. When enforcement is delayed, limited, or visibly constrained, behavior often changes quickly. Some participants test boundaries. Others exploit them.
Findings from deterrence research indicate that when the perceived likelihood of arrest drops, offending becomes more likely—even when underlying motivations have not meaningfully changed.
That shift is not abstract.
The national unrest in 2020 did not unexamined. In July 2024, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a review of the protests and civil disorder.
It found the crowds started out mostly peaceful in those first hours. But things changed fast.
As the hours passed, the protest took on a different character. Efforts to push past barriers gave way to objects thrown at officers and fires burning near Lafayette Park and St. John’s Church.
The account provided by the inspector general makes clear that an orderly protest can unravel with surprising speed, pulling police, bystanders, and surrounding neighborhoods into the fallout.
Guidance developed for crowd events reflects the same reality. State-level crowd management guidance describes demonstrations as fluid events that can shift from peaceful to unlawful and riotous, emphasizing early intervention to prevent violent or destructive behavior from overtaking an event.
When early unlawful behavior goes unchecked, opportunistic actors tend to dominate. The OIG report backs that up, calling for stronger planning and coordination, plus better use of physical barriers to keep police and crowds from clashing directly and head off escalation.
Leadership, Words, and Keeping the Peace
Leadership messaging frequently has the greatest impact during times of increased tension. When leaders continuously defend illegal behavior after protests go too far, escalation is more likely to occur.
Clear boundaries matter.
They help people distinguish lawful dissent from actions that place others at risk.
Public opinion mirrors that concern. The Gallup data points to a public that is increasingly uneasy with scorched-earth language. Americans now say, in growing numbers, that both parties have gone too far and they also rank inflammatory rhetoric from prominent political voices among the leading factors behind political violence.
A separate October 2025 Marquette Law School poll found that 89% of respondents agreed political violence is “always unjustified,” with majorities across parties viewing it as a big problem, though with partisan differences on blame.
That belief alone can shape behavior during periods of tension.
Peaceful Protest and Lawful Paths Forward
Peaceful demonstrators and innocent onlookers are the ones who suffer an additional danger and are more prone to get involved in conflicts which they have not started.
People who think it is the laws or the law enforcement methods that should be changed have legal ways to solve their problems.
Electoral processes, community mobilization, legislator petitions, backing lawsuits, and attending public hearings are some of the ways through which genuine changes can be made.
These may take time but are the most effective way.
A Responsibility That Comes With Influence
There is evidence that those in positions of authority are clearly accountable.
In periods of tension, leadership language matters. How issues are framed can influence how people assess risk and authority, and language that fuels conflict or muddies boundaries can make unlawful behavior feel more acceptable.
The likelihood that protests will become dangerous is decreased when violence and obstruction are openly denounced and peaceful protest is supported.
The framing of issues by public officials can have significant implications for public safety.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)