This piece examines recent political violence directed at President Trump, connects that threat to heated left-wing rhetoric and local actions in Wisconsin, and critiques gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong for comments and policies the author views as dangerous and radical.
We are under 24 hours removed from another attempt to kill President Trump, the third attempt since 2024, and the political climate in many corners feels combustible. Cole Allen, in his manifesto, said he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” That line captures the kind of violent framing that has seeped into public discourse and that some commentators cheer on or excuse.
Across multiple platforms and on cable news, the rhetoric aimed at the president has been extreme and constant for years, with Democrats using hyperbolic language that paints him as an existential threat. That kind of messaging is intentional and aimed at energizing an increasingly agitated base. When heated talk meets fringe actors, the results can be deadly.
Local examples in Wisconsin show how this rhetoric spills into real-world behavior. Kirk Bangstad of Minocqua Brewing publicly promised free beer to celebrate the assassination of the president, and a surprising number of people reacted positively to that idea on social platforms. Platforms that host such chatter often fail to treat these direct celebrations of violence as policy violations, which only normalizes the behavior.
Francesca Hong, who is running for governor in Wisconsin, responded to the incident with a long thread that included some perfunctory condemnations of violence and other remarks that many interpret as excusing political aggression. I will say she’s right. The state has a monopoly on violence. The problem is not recognizing the state’s role; the problem is advocating policies and politics that invite or excuse violence from preferred actors.
The Biden administration has already shown how legal and administrative tools can be turned on political opponents, from enforcement of the FACE Act against pro-life groups to IRS scrutiny of conservative nonprofits. Those real examples feed a sense among some on the left that legal levers and public fury can be used to punish ideological foes. That dynamic makes talk of retribution more dangerous, not less.
Policy proposals Hong supports would reshape Wisconsin in ways that worry many voters: keeping ICE largely out of the state, pushing for socialized medicine, and backing measures that critics say would hamper energy production during brutal winters. Those positions are tied to broader priorities that, combined with punitive enforcement, could concentrate power in state hands and reduce individual freedom in key areas like speech and self-defense.
There is an obvious tension when politicians talk about the state as the guarantor of order while also pushing disarmament measures for law-abiding citizens. If the state truly holds the monopoly on legitimate force, disarming responsible people while releasing or leniently handling criminals makes no sense to voters who want both safety and liberty. That contradiction goes unanswered by many on the progressive left.
What makes Hong’s posture uniquely troubling to critics is not only the policy agenda but the way her comments were read by people already primed for violence. To many, her tone signaled tolerance for political coercion when it serves partisan ends. When a candidate’s rhetoric aligns with celebratory responses to attempted murder, reasonable people worry about where that alignment leads.
Democratic candidates in Wisconsin have staked out positions that alarm voters who value constitutional protections and basic public safety. Of all the radical positions floating in this election cycle, few are as immediately disqualifying as tolerating or rationalizing violence against political opponents. That pattern of rhetoric and policy preference raises serious questions about fitness to govern in a closely divided state.
