A quick, direct summary: this piece examines troubling rhetoric from Francesca Hong and others on the Left, traces a history of violent fantasies aimed at Republican leaders, explains the coded “8647” language, and argues that such talk creates a dangerous permission structure that can encourage attacks on President Trump and his supporters.
I remember the old days when the left flirted with fantasies about killing Republican presidents, and those dark impulses haven’t disappeared. Back in 2006 a film called “Death of a President” showed how extreme some of that rhetoric could become, and it’s still relevant when we see similar talk today. That history makes current language harder to shrug off as harmless political theater.
Today a disturbing slogan circulates among some on the left: “8647.” It’s shorthand that, on its face, reads as an instruction to “86” President Trump. Anyone who follows political slang knows “86” means to get rid of something, and the code speaks for itself. When activists use that number as a rallying cry, reasonable people should be alarmed.
Check out these remarks she made:
“In the restaurant industry, when we’re out of something, we say it’s 86’d,” Hong said. “And I say it’s about f***ing time that we 86 Trump. He represents the utter failure of our government to keep us safe from threats both viral and systemic.”
Those are not the words of somebody practicing political restraint. They are explicit, charged, and aimed at the man who leads a major political movement. Rhetoric like that is dangerous whether it’s shouted in private or posted publicly, and it deserves scrutiny from both the media and the public.
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/2084443333682974755
There are broader signals that matter here, too, not just one quote. Francesca Hong has been tied in public comments to calls for violence against immigration enforcement, for sweeping changes that would sanctuary entire states, and to proposals that would gut conventional law enforcement and incarceration. Those are policy positions with real-world consequences when paired with violent language.
To be clear, criticizing a politician is normal, and heated rhetoric is part of democratic life. The line is crossed when calls to “86” someone start to sound like a plan rather than a metaphor. We have to take the words literally sometimes, because people act on literal meanings.
When political leaders or influencers cast opponents as existential threats, they ratchet up the risk. Labeling President Trump as Hitler or a Nazi turns disagreement into moral annihilation, and that framing reduces the cost of violence in the minds of some. That kind of dehumanizing language is the beginning of a permission structure for harm.
Permission structures are simple: if a person is portrayed as beyond the pale, then attacking them becomes acceptable to the attacker. As a conservative watching this unfold, the pattern is obvious and alarming. The left’s rhetoric often moves past policy debate into moral delegitimization, and once that happens people justify extreme measures.
This is not theoretical. We have seen how coded slogans and euphemisms become rallying cries and then become actions. When leaders and high-profile supporters use shorthand that signals violence, followers take cues about what behavior is allowed. That’s why public accountability matters more than ever.
Some on the left genuinely think political violence is justified if it serves their goals, and that makes their slogans dangerous rather than clever. They despise President Trump and want him out, and in some circles that desire has been expressed with language that sounds like a call to violence. That is unacceptable in a functioning republic.
Free speech protects heated debate, but it doesn’t give a free pass to threats disguised as slogans. Republicans and conservatives should call out violent rhetoric by name while defending the right to vigorous political disagreement. We can reject both suppression of speech and the idea that threats should be normalized.
People who want normal politics should demand straightforward answers from those who promote violent-sounding language. If public figures intend to use metaphors, they must say so clearly and disavow literal action. Silence or evasiveness only deepens suspicion and raises the stakes for everyone.
Ultimately, citizens and institutions have a responsibility to push back when political talk crosses into incitement. That means reporters, platforms, and elected officials must not treat dangerous slogans as clever branding. We deserve debates about policy, not countdowns that hint at something darker.
Keep the pressure on to translate rhetoric back into policy discussion and accountability. Words matter, and when they point toward violence everyone, regardless of party, should step in to stop it. The health of our democracy depends on keeping political conflict fierce but nonviolent.
