World Peace

TRUMP & THE REPUBLICAN TRIFECTA

Is the Republican Trifecta keeping Trump safe from impeachment?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of late 2025, the Republican Trifecta—control over the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate—serves as a primary political barrier against any impeachment or conviction of Donald Trump. 

House of Representatives: As the chamber responsible for initiating impeachment, the Republican majority effectively prevents any impeachment articles from reaching a vote or passing. Trump and his allies have actively worked to maintain this majority through the 2026 midterms specifically to avoid a “third impeachment” that they believe a Democratic-led House would pursue.

Senate Protection: Even if impeachment were initiated, the Republican-led Senate provides a secondary layer of protection. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority (67 votes), a threshold historically impossible to meet without significant Republican defection. Currently, only three Republican senators who previously voted to convict Trump remain in office.

Internal Party Loyalty: The current Republican caucus is more aligned with Trump than in his first term. Only two House Republicans who voted for his second impeachment remain in the chamber.

Strategic Countermeasures: To ensure this protection lasts, Trump has launched aggressive efforts to prevent the “routine” loss of House seats typically seen by a president’s party during midterm elections. 

Despite this protection, the thin margins of the Republican majority and potential internal “fighting” could still present challenges to the broader legislative agenda, even if it remains a wall against impeachment.”

What actions might prompt impeachment efforts against Trump, regardless of the political climate?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, several formal impeachment resolutions have already been introduced in the House of Representatives, primarily by Democratic lawmakers who argue that President Trump’s second-term actions constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.” These efforts persist despite a Republican-controlled Congress that is unlikely to move them forward. 

The primary actions currently prompting these impeachment efforts include:

1. Abuse of Executive and Judicial Power 

Defying Court Orders: Trump has been accused of refusing to comply with judicial mandates, specifically regarding the release of billions in congressionally appropriated foreign aid and orders related to immigration.

Weaponizing the Department of Justice: Resolutions cite the “politicization” of the DOJ to target political enemies (such as former FBI Director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James) and to shield allies by dismissing January 6-related prosecutions.

Intimidating the Judiciary: Trump has publicly attacked judges who rule against his administration, which critics claim undermines judicial independence and incites threats against federal officials. 

2. Usurpation of Congressional Authority 

Appropriations Power: Articles of impeachment allege Trump has unlawfully dismantled federal agencies (such as the Department of Education) and impounded funds that were legally mandated by Congress.

War Powers: Resolutions assert Trump unconstitutionally attacked Iran in June 2025 without prior congressional authorization.

Unlawful Offices: The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the appointment of Elon Musk to an authoritative position without the Senate’s “advice and consent” are listed as constitutional violations. 

3. Civil Rights and First Amendment Violations

Retaliatory Censorship: Critics point to the suspension of critics (e.g., Jimmy Kimmel) and threats against broadcasting licenses for unfavorable coverage as direct violations of First Amendment rights.

Unlawful Detentions: The administration is accused of “kidnapping” and removing U.S. residents and asylum-seekers to foreign prisons without due process.

Threats Against Lawmakers: Representative Al Green filed articles in December 2025 citing Trump’s calls for the execution of Democratic lawmakers as a flagrant abuse of power. 

4. Corruption and Bribery

Personal Enrichment: Ongoing allegations involve the solicitation of foreign emoluments and utilizing the presidency for “grift” and personal gain.

Quid Pro Quo: One resolution alleges a corrupt agreement with New York City Mayor Eric Adams to dismiss a criminal case in exchange for immigration enforcement cooperation. 

While constitutional experts note that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are inherently subjective, the current political trifecta means these actions are being documented “for history” rather than immediate removal. For a detailed look at the formal charges, you can review H.Res.353 and H.Res.939.”

TRUMP’S VIOLENT RHETORIC

Explain: “Trump’s calls for the execution of Democratic lawmakers as a flagrant abuse of power.”

GoogleAI Mode: “In November 2025, President Trump sparked national outrage and a formal impeachment resolution after suggesting that a group of Democratic lawmakers should face execution. 

The Triggering Event

The controversy began after six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds—including Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin—released a video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship”. In the video, they reminded U.S. service members of their legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. 

Trump’s Response

On November 20, 2025, Trump responded on Truth Social with a series of aggressive posts: 

Death Penalty Suggestion: He labeled the video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”.

Accusations of Treason: He called the lawmakers “TRAITORS” and demanded they be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL”.

Amplifying Violence: He reposted a third-party comment stating, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”. 

Impeachment Charges (H.Res.939)

Representative Al Green (D-TX) cited these comments as the primary basis for Article I of his December 2025 impeachment resolution. The resolution framed Trump’s rhetoric as a “flagrant abuse of power” because: 

Violation of Free Speech: It targeted lawmakers for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Incitement of Violence: It fostered a political climate where public officials face credible threats of physical assault.

Threat to Legislative Independence: Critics argued the rhetoric was an attempt to intimidate the legislative branch and criminalize dissent. 

The White House later clarified that the President did not actually seek the execution of lawmakers, but emphasized that encouraging service members to defy the chain of command was “dangerous”. The Republican-led House voted to table the resolution on December 11, 2025.”

What other presidents of the world used a similar language in history?

GoogleAI Mode: “While unique in modern U.S. history, President Trump’s November 2025 rhetoric—labeling lawmakers “traitors” whose actions are “punishable by death”—shares linguistic and conceptual patterns with several historical and contemporary leaders.

Historical Parallels

Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union): Frequently utilized the label “enemies of the people” to describe political opposition. This designation was used to strip opponents of their rights and imply that their removal or execution was a necessary “purification” for the state.

Adolf Hitler (Germany): Employed a “barrage of personal invective, threats, and a never-ending search for scapegoats”. Like Trump’s “sedition” claims, Hitler framed dissent as a national security threat and labeled opposition figures as traitors to justify extreme measures.

Maximilien Robespierre (France): During the Reign of Terror, he popularized the idea that “virtue” required the “terror” of execution for political “traitors”. He frequently used the podium to declare that internal enemies of the Republic deserved the death penalty.

Andrew Johnson (United States): A rare domestic parallel, Johnson openly urged violence against his political opponents (Radical Republicans) following the Civil War as part of his effort to maintain a specific social order. 

Modern Global Comparisons

Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil): Known for aggressive rhetoric against his political rivals, Bolsonaro once suggested that his opponents should be “shot” and frequently used military-adjacent language to threaten the legislative and judicial branches.

Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines): Regularly used violent rhetoric against critics and human rights advocates, once stating he would be “happy to slaughter” millions of “addicts” and political enemies he deemed a threat to the nation.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel): While not calling for execution, he has been noted for adopting similar “enemy of the state” and “fake news” rhetoric to delegitimize political and media critics. 

Context of the 2025 Incident

Trump’s specific “punishable by death” comment was a response to Democratic lawmakers—including Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin—releasing a video advising service members to refuse illegal orders. While the White House later claimed the president was simply stating the legal penalty for sedition rather than ordering executions, critics argued the language was a deliberate echo of authoritarian tactics used to incite violence and silence dissent.”

Give more examples of political figures using similar rhetoric

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, political figures in the U.S. and abroad have increasingly used “eliminationist” rhetoric, framing political opponents not as mere rivals but as existential threats to the state who deserve severe punishment or death.

1. Contemporary U.S. Political Figures

Beyond President Trump’s November 2025 call for the execution of Democratic lawmakers, other prominent U.S. politicians have used similar violent imagery:

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): Has repeatedly claimed that high-ranking Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are “guilty of treason” and suggested they deserve the death penalty.

Mark Robinson (NC Lt. Gov.): During public remarks, stated that “some folks need killing” when discussing the need to confront liberal “enemies” of traditional values.

Kari Lake (AZ): Encouraged her supporters to “strap on a Glock” in preparation for political struggles, framing the election as a “battle”.

Paul Gosar (R-AZ): Previously shared a stylized video depicting him physically attacking and “murdering” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

2. International Leaders and Regimes (2025)

Iran: The Iranian regime carried out over 1,700 executions in 2025 as a “calculated mechanism of repression,” frequently labeling dissidents and protesters as “enemies of God” or “counter-revolutionaries” to justify state-sanctioned killings.

Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela): In late 2025, Maduro threatened to declare the “Republic in Arms” and warned of severe retribution against “traitors” and foreign-backed opposition who challenge his sovereignty.

Nayib Bukele (El Salvador): Though widely popular, his administration has been criticized by Human Rights Watch in 2025 for rhetoric suggesting that “anyone” can be arrested and that the state will use total force to “vanquish” internal enemies, often blurring the line between gang members and political critics. 

3. Historical Precedents

Mao Zedong (China): During the Cultural Revolution, Mao used the term “counter-revolutionary” to justify the public humiliation and execution of teachers and officials by students. In 1966, this rhetoric led to the murder of 1,772 people in Beijing alone during “Red August”.

Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union): Systematically used the label “enemy of the people” during the Great Purge to execute hundreds of thousands of party members and military officers accused of “sedition”.

Patriot Militias (American Revolution): In 1779, American patriots justified the hanging of “Loyalists” without trial, framing their allegiance to the British Crown as treason punishable by immediate death on the battlefield. 

4. Direct Retribution Measures (Late 2025)

Following the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk in September 2025, the rhetoric of execution and “vengeance” escalated:

JD Vance (Vice President): Called for a crackdown on “uncivil” speech and investigations into liberal groups, framing their criticism as a precursor to violence.

Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense): Called for a “purge” of the military to remove any personnel found to be critical of the administration’s allies or “disrespectful” of fallen conservative figures.”

What are the implications of the head of the state and some lawmakers using this kind of rhetoric?

GoogleAI Mode: “The use of “eliminationist” or violent rhetoric by heads of state and lawmakers in 2025 has profound implications for democratic stability, public safety, and the rule of law. Research and real-world events from this year illustrate several critical consequences.

1. Surge in Real-World Violence and Threats

Experts note that while rhetoric may not always be the sole cause of violence, it frequently acts as a “pipeline” that justifies and directs it. 

Increased Casualties: 2025 has seen roughly 150 politically motivated attacks in the first six months alone—nearly double the same period in 2024. High-profile incidents include the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the murder of Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman.

Escalating Threats: The U.S. Capitol Police are on track to investigate over 14,000 threats against lawmakers in 2025, a significant increase from approximately 9,500 in 2024.

Targeting of Journalists: In 2025, there has been a surge in violence against journalists, with 170 reported assaults as of mid-December. Critics argue that when leaders model “ridicule and delegitimization,” it signals to supporters that the press are “fair targets”. 

2. Erosion of Democratic Norms and Institutions

Violent rhetoric fundamentally undermines the “core values” of restraint in political disputes and the acceptance of free and fair elections. 

Chilling Effect on Public Service: Threats have led to a “chilling effect” on civic engagement. Surveyed local officials reported increased worry about hostility, which has reduced their willingness to participate in public events or run for re-election.

Normalization of Violence: Repeated use of violent language by “co-party elites” (leaders within one’s own party) has been found to increase support for political violence among their followers, as it reduces the social taboo surrounding such acts.

Breakdown of Compromise: The framing of political disagreement as an “existential struggle” makes it nearly impossible to engage in the constructive negotiation required for democratic law-making. 

3. Public Psychological Impact and Fear

The constant barrage of aggressive communication has deeply affected the American psyche in 2025.

Pervasive Fear: 85% of Americans now believe politically motivated violence is increasing, and 66% are concerned about violence occurring in their own communities.

Crisis of Trust: Nearly 8 in 10 voters feel they are witnessing a “political crisis,” and a significant portion of the public perceives the current environment as more dangerous than previous eras.

Authoritarian Appetite: This pervasive fear has created a “dangerous appetite for authoritarian solutions,” as citizens may become more willing to sacrifice democratic norms in exchange for perceived safety. 

4. Strategic Political Consequences

Leaders often use this rhetoric strategically to consolidate power by polarizing the populace and marginalizing rivals. 

Mobilization vs. Stifling: While violent language can mobilize a leader’s base, it also stifles voter turnout in targeted communities by creating a climate of fear.

Judicial Independence: Rhetoric that targets the judiciary or encourages the ignoring of court decisions has led to a divergence in public respect for the rule of law, further weakening the balance of power.”

Why would Trump use this kind of rhetoric?

GoogleAI Mode: “Political analysts, linguistic researchers, and historians suggest that President Trump’s use of aggressive or “eliminationist” rhetoric in 2025 is a deliberate and multi-faceted strategy.

His motivations for using such language—including the November 2025 calls for the execution of Democratic lawmakers—can be categorized into four primary goals:

1. Political Mobilization and “Righteous Violence”

Trump utilizes violent vocabulary to frame politics as an existential battle between “us” and “them”. 

Motivating the Base: Aggressive language has been found to boost support among listeners with aggressive personalities and motivate his core supporters to vote.

“Righteous” vs. “Evil” Violence: Analysts observe that Trump has drawn a line not between violence and nonviolence, but between what he casts as “evil” violence (by his enemies) and “righteous” violence (by his supporters).

Cultivating Outrage: By labeling opponents as “traitors” and “vermin,” he erodes social taboos and normalizes the idea that political action may require force. 

2. Retribution and Deterrence

A central theme of Trump’s 2025 rhetoric is revenge for what he perceives as his own past “persecution” by the federal government. 

** Retaliatory Retribution**: He frames his calls for arrests and trials as a necessary response to the “weaponization” of the DOJ against him during his first term and post-presidency.

Warning to the Military/Intelligence: By labeling the 2025 video advising troops to refuse illegal orders as “sedition,” he aims to deter any dissent within the military and intelligence communities, demanding absolute personal loyalty. 

3. Normalization Through Repetition

Strategic repetition is a key part of Trump’s “public playbook” to desensitize the public. 

Shifting Norms: By consistently using terms like “punishable by death” or “enemies from within,” what was once shocking becomes a routine part of the political cycle, making it harder for critics to sustain public outrage.

Negative Populism: His rhetoric has evolved from “inclusive” populist language (focused on “the people”) to “exclusionary” populism, which focuses heavily on attacking “elites” and “out-groups”. 

4. Consolidating Authority and Institutional Control

The rhetoric serves as a precursor to formal policy changes intended to dismantle opposition. 

Criminalizing Dissent: Efforts by the administration to investigate the six lawmakers for “sedition” are seen as a coordinated attempt to redefine constitutional norms as criminal acts.

Justifying Retribution: Framing political rivals as “domestic terrorists” provides a public justification for utilizing government agencies, like the FBI or DOJ, to target those individuals. 

Despite the severity of the language, Trump has frequently used a tactic of plausible deniability, later claiming he was simply “defining sedition” or “stating the law” rather than issuing a direct threat.”

Prior to the November 2025 incident, has Trump used similar rhetoric?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, prior to the November 2025 incident, Donald Trump established a long-documented pattern of using violent and “eliminationist” rhetoric toward political rivals, often explicitly suggesting the death penalty or imprisonment for perceived treason. 

His rhetoric escalated significantly during his 2024 campaign and the first year of his second term in 2025: 

1. Calls for Execution 

General Mark Milley (2023): In September 2023, Trump suggested that General Mark Milley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for treason after reports surfaced of Milley’s calls to Chinese counterparts during the final months of Trump’s first term.

“Seditious” Critics: Throughout late 2024 and 2025, he consistently labeled critics—including former GOP Representative Liz Cheney—as “traitors” and suggested they should face “military tribunals” or be jailed for their roles in investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. 

2. Rhetoric of “Retribution” (2024 Campaign)

“The Final Battle”: Trump framed the 2024 election as “the final battle” and himself as his supporters’ “retribution”.

“Enemies from Within”: He repeatedly referred to political opponents, such as the “radical left,” as “vermin” and “the enemy from within,” suggesting they were a greater threat to the U.S. than foreign adversaries like Russia or China. 

3. Suggestions of Violent Policing and Force

Immediate Executions: In late 2023, he suggested that shoplifters should be “immediately shot” to deter crime.

“One Violent Day”: During his 2024 campaign, he proposed that a “single day of violent policing” would solve American crime issues. 

4. Direct Retribution Actions (2025)

Targeting Former Allies: In late 2025, after a fallout over policy, Trump turned this rhetoric against his own former supporters, even labeling high-profile MAGA figures like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene a “traitor” when they broke with him on specific legislative issues. 

This history led many experts to conclude that the November 2025 “punishable by death” comments were not an isolated outburst but the culmination of a decade-long strategic effort to normalize violent political speech.”

Explain: “During his 2024 campaign, he proposed that a “single day of violent policing” would solve American crime issues.”

GoogleAI Mode: “The phrase refers to comments made by Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, on September 29, 2024. During his speech, he suggested that a brief, sanctioned window of extreme police force would immediately end crime in America. 

Key Details of the Proposal

The Concept: Trump stated that crime—specifically retail theft and shoplifting—could be stopped if law enforcement were allowed to be “extraordinarily rough” for a short period.

The Duration: He specifically called for “one real rough, nasty day” or even just “one rough hour” of police action. He claimed that “the word will get out and it will end immediately”.

Leadership: He gestured to Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), suggesting that if someone like Kelly were put in charge for that one day to manage the crackdown, the issue would be resolved. 

Context and Comparisons

“The Purge”: Critics and commentators widely compared the suggestion to the horror film franchise The Purge, which depicts a dystopian America where all crime is legal for a 12-hour window once a year.

Campaign Clarification: Following the backlash, a Trump campaign official told media outlets that the former president was “clearly just floating it in jest” and was not making a formal policy proposal.

Target of Criticism: Trump used the remarks to attack his then-opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, blaming her and the “liberal left” for purportedly restricting police from doing their jobs. 

While the campaign dismissed it as a joke, the comments were cited by civil rights advocates and political opponents throughout late 2024 and 2025 as evidence of a “dangerous” vision for state-sponsored violence.”

THE “SEDITIOUS SIX”

How did the lawmakers who released the video respond to Trump’s comments?

GoogleAI Mode: “The lawmakers who released the video—Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) along with Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan—remained defiant, characterizing the president’s “sedition” and “death” comments as an attempt at intimidation and an incitement to violence. 

Key responses to President Trump’s November 2025 comments included:

1. Joint Statement of Defiance

The six lawmakers released a joint statement on November 20, 2025, declaring that “no threat, intimidation, or call for violence” would deter them from their constitutional duty. They specifically highlighted the irony of the situation, stating: 

“What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law”.

They reaffirmed their “sacred obligation” to ensure service members understand their duty to follow only lawful orders. 

2. Personal Reactions and Security Changes

Senator Elissa Slotkin: Revealed that she and her family received a massive uptick in death threats and a bomb threat at her farm following Trump’s posts. She was placed under 24/7 security by the Capitol Police and formed a legal defense fund to fight what she called “false and vindictive allegations”.

Senator Mark Kelly: Recounted learning about the execution threat while in a classified briefing with Slotkin. He publicly responded to the White House’s claims of “insurrection,” stating, “I got shot at serving our country in combat… I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection”. 

3. Democratic Leadership Support

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: Condemned the comments from the Senate floor, calling them a “deadly serious” and “outright threat” to the lives of elected officials.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: Called for Trump to immediately delete the “unhinged” posts and recant his rhetoric before it resulted in physical harm. 

4. Republican Responses

Responses from Republicans were mixed. Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated he did not agree with the “punishable by death” comment, though he criticized the original video as “provocative” and “unnecessary”. Speaker Mike Johnson defended the president, suggesting Trump was merely “defining sedition” rather than issuing a literal death threat.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood that the lawmakers who released the video were restating the law?

GoogleAI Mode: “In November 2025, six Democratic lawmakers released a video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” which advised U.S. service members they have a duty to refuse illegal orders. 

The likelihood that these lawmakers were accurately restating the law is considered 5 out of 5 by legal scholars and military experts, based on long-standing statutes and established military codes. 

Legal Basis for Their Statements

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly mandate that service members obey lawful orders while simultaneously obligating them to disobey unlawful orders.

Constitutional Oath: U.S. service members swear an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution,” not an individual commander-in-chief. This oath places the law above any person in the chain of command.

Nuremberg Precedent: Established after WWII, the “just following orders” defense is legally invalid for war crimes. Military law teaches that an order is “manifestly unlawful” if its illegality is obvious, such as orders to target civilians or use torture. 

The Dispute Over the Video

While the legal principle itself is not in question, the controversy in 2025 centered on the intent and context of the video: 

Lawmakers’ Position: They stated they were simply “restating the law” to support troops who felt pressured by the administration’s use of the National Guard in U.S. cities and military force against suspected drug traffickers.

Administration Response: President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth labeled the video “seditious,” arguing that it was a “politically-motivated influence operation” intended to undermine the president’s authority and incite rebellion.

Ongoing Investigations: As of December 2025, the FBI and Department of Defense have opened inquiries into the “Seditious Six,” including potential measures to “unretire” Senator Mark Kelly for court-martial proceedings. 

Legal experts emphasize that while service members risk punishment if they refuse an order that is later deemed lawful, the obligation to refuse a truly illegal order remains a fundamental requirement of their service. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Explain: “As of December 2025, the FBI and Department of Defense have opened inquiries into the “Seditious Six.”

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, the Trump administration launched formal investigations into six Democratic lawmakers—dubbed the “Seditious Six” by the President—who released a video advising military service members to refuse illegal orders. The investigations represent a significant escalation in the conflict between the executive and legislative branches.

The Investigating Bodies

Department of Justice (DOJ) / FBI: Attorney General Todd Blanche directed the FBI to investigate whether the lawmakers violated 18 U.S. Code § 2387, a federal law that prohibits “interference with or affecting loyalty, discipline, or morale of the armed forces.” Critics of the probe call it a “weaponization of the DOJ,” while the administration frames it as a national security necessity [H.Res.939].

Department of Defense (DOD): Secretary of War Pete Hegseth opened a separate military inquiry. This includes a specific focus on Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a retired Navy captain and astronaut. Hegseth has explored the “extraordinary measure” of recalling Kelly to active duty for the purpose of a court-martial, arguing that his actions constituted a breach of military discipline even in retirement [H.Res.939].

The Core Allegations

The administration’s inquiries are built on two primary claims:

Incitement to Mutiny: Trump allies argue the video was a coordinated “influence operation” designed to encourage a mass “insurrection” of service members against the Commander-in-Chief.

Sedition: President Trump publicly labeled the lawmakers’ actions as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR” and “TREASON,” claiming they were actively working to dismantle his administration’s ability to govern and protect the nation.

Political and Legal Repercussions

Congressional Backlash: These inquiries served as the catalyst for H.Res.939, a resolution filed by Representative Al Green to impeach Trump for “intimidating” lawmakers and abusing his power to “criminalize” political speech.

Republican Stance: The Republican-controlled House has largely supported the inquiries. Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested the lawmakers “walked a very dangerous line” by suggesting troops should question the chain of command during a period of national emergency.

Court Challenges: Lawyers for the lawmakers have filed emergency motions to halt the investigations, citing the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which protects members of Congress from being questioned about their official legislative activities in court.

As of December 25, 2025, the investigations remain open, contributing to a high-stakes standoff regarding the boundaries of executive power and the First Amendment rights of elected officials.”

What are the implications of these ongoing investigations against lawmakers for restating the law to soldiers?

GoogleAI Mode: “The ongoing investigations by the FBI and Department of Defense (DOD) against the “Seditious Six” have far-reaching constitutional, military, and civil implications as of late 2025. These inquiries are widely viewed by legal experts as a “constitutional gray zone,” testing the limits of presidential power and the First Amendment. 

1. Constitutional and Legal Conflicts

The core of the legal dispute is whether restating military law constitutes “sedition” or “interference” with the military. 

Speech or Debate Clause: Constitutional scholars argue that lawmakers are protected from prosecution for their official speech and actions under Article I.

First Amendment Precedent: Experts note that under Brandenburg v. Ohio, advocacy is protected unless it incites “imminent lawless action.” Since the video urged following the law (by refusing illegal orders), many argue there is no lawful predicate for a criminal investigation.

Internal FBI Rift: Reports indicate a split within the FBI. While headquarters and the Counterterrorism Division have pushed for a “seditious conspiracy” probe, career agents in the Washington Field Office have pushed back, citing a lack of factual basis. 

2. Escalation of Civil-Military Tension

The investigations significantly impact the relationship between the commander-in-chief and the armed forces.

Duty to Disobey: The administration’s stance—labeling a reminder of the duty to refuse illegal orders as “sedition”—creates confusion in the chain of command. Critics argue it signals a demand for absolute loyalty to the President over the Constitution.

Precedent for Military Tribunals: The move to potentially recall Senator Mark Kelly to active duty for a court-martial is unprecedented in modern history. If successful, it would allow the executive branch to use military law to punish retired service members who enter politics. 

3. Implications for Legislative Independence

The use of federal agencies to investigate political opponents has immediate practical consequences for Congress.

Intimidation of Dissent: Lawmakers like Senator Elissa Slotkin have described the FBI inquiries as “legal harassment” and “intimidation tactics” designed to silence those who hold the administration accountable.

Targeting Veterans: All six targeted lawmakers have military or intelligence backgrounds. Targeting this specific group is seen as an effort to delegitimize their expertise and authority on national security matters.

Seat Vacancy Threats: If Senator Kelly were successfully returned to active status, he would be prohibited from holding a partisan office, effectively forcing his resignation from the Senate and shifting the balance of power. 

4. Broader Institutional Impact

Weaponization of DOJ: The investigations are cited by Democratic leadership as clear evidence of the politicization of the Department of Justice to target “enemies from within”.

Retaliatory Sanctions: The administration has simultaneously used executive orders to sanction law firms associated with these lawmakers or other investigations into Trump, further isolating political opponents from legal support.”

LAW FIRM SANCTIONS

Explain: “The administration has simultaneously used executive orders to sanction law firms associated”

GoogleAI Mode: “In early 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders and memoranda aimed at several prominent “Big Law” firms. The administration framed these actions as measures to address “unethical conduct,” “frivolous litigation” against the government, and “partisan attacks”. 

The primary components and implications of these actions include:

1. Targeted Sanctions and Retaliatory Measures 

The orders targeted firms that had previously represented political opponents, hired former investigators of the president (such as Robert Mueller or Jack Smith’s team), or pursued “progressive” causes. Specific sanctions included: 

Terminating Government Contracts: Federal agencies were instructed to cancel all current contracts with the targeted firms and avoid them for future work.

Revoking Security Clearances: The administration suspended security clearances for attorneys at these firms, directly impacting their ability to represent clients in sensitive matters.

Restricting Physical Access: Lawyers from targeted firms were prohibited from entering federal buildings or courthouses, effectively blocking them from practicing in certain jurisdictions. 

2. Notable Firms Targeted

Perkins Coie: Targeted in March 2025 for its ties to the 2016 Clinton campaign and its diversity initiatives.

Covington & Burling: Targeted for employing attorneys who assisted Special Counsel Jack Smith.

WilmerHale and Jenner & Block: Punished for hiring members of the Mueller investigation team.

Paul, Weiss: Initially targeted for its work on cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack and investigations into Trump’s first term. 

3. Settlements and “Preemptive Deals”

In exchange for the rescinding of these orders, several firms entered into controversial settlements: 

Pro Bono Requirements: Nine major law firms—including Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis—collectively pledged approximately $940 million in free legal services toward administration-approved initiatives, such as defending law enforcement or supporting trade policies.

Policy Changes: Some firms agreed to discontinue specific internal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies to avoid sanctions. 

4. Legal Challenges and Judicial Rulings

The legal community has largely condemned these actions as a violation of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. 

Court Injunctions: Throughout mid-2025, federal judges—including both Democratic and Republican appointees—repeatedly struck down or temporarily blocked these orders, ruling they constituted “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” and “retaliatory action” designed to chill legal advocacy.

American Bar Association (ABA) Lawsuit: The ABA sued the administration in June 2025, arguing the policy was intended to “intimidate and coerce” law firms into silence. 

Critics describe these measures as a “frontal assault” on the independence of the legal profession, creating a “chilling effect” where firms may now fear taking on clients who oppose the administration’s interests.”

How many terms can Trump serve as president?

GoogleAI Mode: “Under current U.S. law, Donald Trump can serve a maximum of two terms as president. 

Having served his first term from 2017 to 2021 and been inaugurated for his second term on January 20, 2025, he is constitutionally barred from being elected to the presidency again. 

Key Legal Constraints

22nd Amendment: This amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”. It does not distinguish between consecutive and non-consecutive terms.

12th Amendment Connection: Many legal scholars argue that because the 22nd Amendment makes him ineligible for the presidency, the 12th Amendment—which requires the vice president to be “constitutionally eligible” for the presidency—prevents him from running as a vice president to bypass term limits. 

Proposed Changes and Speculation

Despite these limits, several discussions regarding a potential third term emerged in 2025:

Legislative Proposals: In January 2025, Republican Representative Andy Ogles introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution to allow three presidential terms if the first two were non-consecutive.

High Hurdles for Repeal: Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 38 of the 50 state legislatures. Republicans do not currently hold the necessary majorities for such a change.

Recent Comments: On October 28, 2025, Trump stated it was “pretty clear” the Constitution would not allow him to run a third time and dismissed the idea of running as a vice president in 2028 as “too cute”.”

Regarding the lawmakers who released the video restating the law, has their legal representation received sanctions?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of late December 2025, there is no public record of the specific law firms representing the “Seditious Six” lawmakers—the group including Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin—receiving direct sanctions for their work on this particular case. 

However, the administration has utilized broader, systemic measures to target legal firms associated with political opposition or those challenging federal actions. 

1. Preemptive Legal Defense Measures

Anticipating that the administration might use federal power to target their legal representation, the targeted lawmakers have moved to protect their counsel through independent funding:

Legal Defense Funds: In early December 2025, Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin formally established legal defense funds approved by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Purpose of Funds: These funds are designed to pay for private attorneys (such as Herrera Arellano LLP for Kelly and MBA Consulting Group for Slotkin) to manage the FBI and Department of Defense (DOD) inquiries into their “sedition” video. This protects their representation from being directly stifled by government budget controls. 

2. Broader Administration Sanctions on Law Firms

While the “Seditious Six” lawyers haven’t been specifically sanctioned yet, the administration has established a framework to penalize firms that litigate against the government:

Retaliatory Executive Orders: Earlier in 2025, President Trump signed executive orders targeting “Big Law” firms like Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling—which have represented Democratic causes or former investigators—by revoking their security clearances and barring them from federal contracts.

Sanctions for “Vexatious” Litigation: A March 2025 memorandum directs the Department of Justice to prioritize seeking sanctions against law firms engaged in what the administration deems “frivolous” or “partisan” attacks against the United States.

Coerced Settlements: Several large firms (including Paul, Weiss) avoided potential sanctions by agreeing to drop diversity programs and provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for administration-aligned causes. 

3. Impact on the Current Case

Chilling Effect: Legal experts note that these broader sanctions have created a “chilling effect” across the industry, making some firms hesitant to represent lawmakers in high-stakes “sedition” cases for fear of losing their own security clearances or government business.

Targeting Military Lawyers: In the case of Mark Kelly, the administration is specifically investigating his “retired” status to determine if he can be recalled to active duty. If successful, his civilian legal representation could be complicated by the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).”

SENATOR MARK KELLY

Why is it significant to the Republican Trifecta for Senator Mark Kelly to lose his position in the Senate?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of late 2025, the removal of Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) is strategically significant to the Republican Trifecta because it could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Senate and set a precedent for executive control over the legislative branch.

The significance lies in three primary areas:

1. Weakening the Democratic Senate Minority

Although Republicans hold the majority in the Senate as of 2025, their margin is thin. 

Special Election Opportunity: If Kelly were forced to vacate his seat—whether through a recall to active duty for court-martial or other pressure—Arizona law requires a special election in 2026.

Flipping a Seat: Republicans view this as a prime opportunity to flip a seat in a key swing state during a midterm year, which historically favors the party not in the White House.

Eliminating a 2028 Rival: Analysts note that Kelly is a top-tier contender for the 2028 presidential election. Removing him from office now or damaging his record through a court-martial would serve to neutralize a potent future challenger to the Republican Trifecta. 

2. Establishing Executive Dominance (The “Kelly Precedent”)

The attempt by the Department of War and President Trump to recall Kelly to active duty is seen as a major test of the separation of powers.

Legislative Independence: Constitutional experts argue that allowing a President to discipline a sitting Senator via military law violates core principles of legislative independence.

Silencing Dissent: If successful, this would establish a precedent where the executive branch can use the military justice system to punish any retired service member holding civilian office who speaks out against the administration.

Deterrence: The investigation is framed by critics as a “message” to all current and former government employees that speaking against the President will have severe personal and professional consequences. 

3. Impact on Legislative Blockades

Kelly has been a key figure in blocking the Republican legislative agenda in late 2025.

Shutdown Negotiations: Kelly has been a vocal opponent of GOP spending bills, notably refusing to support deals that do not include extensions for Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.

Veterans’ Affairs: He has actively campaigned against Project 2025 proposals to overhaul the VA, utilizing his status as a veteran to lend authority to the Democratic opposition. 

While the Republican-led House and Senate provide a “wall” protecting Trump from impeachment, the removal of a high-profile “Seditious Six” member like Kelly would further consolidate the Trifecta’s power by removing a primary obstacle to their 2025–2026 policy goals.”

Does the Republican Trifecta have a plan of holding this power for decades?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, the Republican Party and the Trump administration have implemented a comprehensive strategy designed not just for immediate legislative gains, but for establishing a durable, multi-decade majority. This plan involves a combination of structural government reorganization, judicial alignment, and aggressive electoral maneuvering. 

1. Structural Reorganization (Project 2025)

The most prominent blueprint for long-term control is Project 2025, a 900-page plan authored by Heritage Foundation experts and former Trump officials to “institutionalize Trumpism”. 

Schedule F and Civil Service Purge: The administration has moved to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as “political appointees”. This allows for the mass firing of non-partisan professionals and their replacement with ideologically vetted “loyalists” trained in “Administration Academies”.

Unitary Executive Theory: The administration is asserting direct presidential control over traditionally independent agencies like the DOJ, FBI, FCC, and FTC. By dismantling the “administrative state,” the party aims to remove institutional barriers that historically checked executive power.

Dismantling Agencies: Plans include the complete abolition of the Department of Education and the restructuring or privatization of agencies like NOAA and FEMA. 

2. Electoral and Judicial Strategies

To maintain the trifecta through 2026 and beyond, the party is pursuing several “aggressive” strategies to tilt the electoral landscape: 

Mid-Decade Redistricting: President Trump has pressured Republican-controlled states—including Texas, Indiana, and Missouri—to redraw congressional districts mid-decade to favor GOP candidates, potentially locking in House seats for years.

Voting Restrictions: The administration has proposed executive orders to prohibit nationwide mail-in voting and ban certain voting machines. Additionally, a new census has been suggested to exclude non-citizens from population counts used for congressional apportionment, which would shift more seats to Republican-leaning areas.

Judicial Dominance: The administration continues to rely on a conservative-majority Supreme Court to uphold executive actions and strike down federal regulations (such as the Chevron doctrine), ensuring that even if the trifecta is eventually lost, the judicial branch remains a “wall” for conservative policy. 

3. Economic and Social “Lock-In”

Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass sweeping changes that are difficult to reverse: 

Permanent Tax Cuts: A primary 2025 goal is making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, which analysts suggest would create a long-term fiscal framework favoring wealthy donors and corporations.

Social Policy Alignment: The administration is redirecting federal funds to support a “biblically based” definition of the family and ending nearly all federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to reshape American social norms. 

While many Republicans acknowledge that trifectas are historically “fleeting,” the 2025 strategy focuses on “protracted trench warfare” to ensure that even if they lose one chamber, their influence over the federal bureaucracy and the electoral system remains permanent.”

SEDITION

What’s the penalty for seditious behavior?
What are the legal ramifications of Trump’s statements?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, the legal landscape surrounding sedition has been redefined by aggressive executive interpretation and legislative standoffs. The penalties vary significantly between civilian and military law, and the ramifications of President Trump’s statements are currently being tested through federal investigations and impeachment efforts.

1. Penalties for Seditious Behavior

Under U.S. federal law, “sedition” primarily falls under Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384). Contrary to President Trump’s November 2025 claims, this civilian statute does not carry the death penalty. 

Civilian Seditious Conspiracy: Punishable by fines and up to 20 years in federal prison. It requires proof that two or more people conspired to use force against the government or to delay the execution of any federal law.

Military Mutiny or Sedition: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 94, sedition committed by persons subject to military law can be punished by death or other sentences as determined by a court-martial.

Interference with Military Loyalty: The administration has specifically invoked 18 U.S.C. § 2387 against the “Seditious Six” lawmakers. This law carries a maximum of 10 years in prison for anyone who “advises, counsels, or urges” insubordination or refusal of duty by military members. 

2. Legal Ramifications of Trump’s Statements

President Trump’s public labeling of Democratic lawmakers as “traitors” and his calls for their execution have triggered immediate legal and political consequences:

FBI and DOJ Investigations: Following Trump’s public pressure, the DOJ and FBI opened formal inquiries into whether the lawmakers’ video violated 18 U.S.C. § 2387. These probes are being challenged by the lawmakers’ legal teams as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, which typically protects congressional messaging.

Military Recall Inquiries: The Department of Defense is investigating the feasibility of recalling retired Senator Mark Kelly to active duty to face a General Court Martial under the UCMJ, potentially bypassing civilian legal protections.

Impeachment Articles: On December 11, 2025, Representative Al Green (D-TX) filed H.Res.939, citing Trump’s calls for executions as a “flagrant abuse of power” and an unconstitutional attempt to intimidate the legislative branch.

First Amendment Precedent: Constitutional experts warn that these investigations test the “bright legal line” between protected political dissent and criminal incitement. A conviction would mark the first successful use of certain sedition statutes against high-ranking federal officials in over a century. 

Summary of Federal Sedition Statutes

Statute
18 U.S.C. § 2381

Title
Treason

Maximum Prison Term
Death or Life

Death Penalty Eligible?
Yes

Statute
18 U.S.C. § 2384

Title
Seditious Conspiracy

Maximum Prison Term
20 Years

Death Penalty Eligible?
No

Statute
18 U.S.C. § 2387

Title
Military Interference

Maximum Prison Term
10 Years

Death Penalty Eligible?
No

Statute
UCMJ Art. 94

Title
Military Mutiny/Sedition

Maximum Prison Term
Death

Death Penalty Eligible?
Yes.”

Considering the relevant law, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood that the six lawmakers are guilty?

GoogleAI Mode: “Determining the “guilt” of the lawmakers—referred to by the administration as the “Seditious Six”—depends on which legal framework is applied. Legal experts generally agree that a conviction is unlikely under standard civilian law, though the unique military status of Senator Mark Kelly creates a distinct legal vulnerability.

Based on current statutes and the established facts as of December 2025:

1. Civilian Law (18 U.S.C. § 2387 and § 2384)

Likelihood of Guilt: 1 out of 5
Legal scholars and former federal prosecutors state that the lawmakers’ actions likely do not meet the high threshold for civilian sedition or military interference. 

Absence of Force: Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) historically requires the use or threat of force to hinder the execution of a law. “Political persuasion” or “trickery” does not constitute sedition under this statute.

Specific Intent: For 18 U.S.C. § 2387, the government must prove the lawmakers intended to impair the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military. Experts argue that reminding service members of their existing legal duty to the Constitution is the opposite of undermining military order.

First Amendment Protection: Supreme Court precedent (Brandenburg v. Ohio) protects speech unless it is directed at inciting “imminent lawless action.” Because the video urged soldiers to “stand up for our laws,” it is considered protected advocacy. 

2. Military Law (UCMJ Article 92 and 94)

Likelihood of Guilt: 2 out of 5
The risk is slightly higher for Senator Mark Kelly due to his status as a retired Navy officer, which technically keeps him subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

The “Hegseth” Argument: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth argues that Kelly’s public advice to soldiers creates “doubt and confusion” that undermines “good order and discipline,” potentially violating UCMJ standards.

The Counter-Argument: Military law itself (Article 92) mandates that service members disobey unlawful orders. Defense attorneys argue it is legally impossible to be found guilty of sedition for encouraging personnel to follow the military’s own rules. 

Summary of Legal Standing

Factor 
Charge

Civilian Prosecution
Seditious Conspiracy / Interference

Military Court-Martial (Kelly)
Mutiny / Sedition

Factor 
Threshold

Civilian Prosecution
High (Requires “Force” or “Imminent Action”)

Military Court-Martial (Kelly)
Moderate (“Good Order & Discipline”)

Factor 
Immunity

Civilian Prosecution
Speech or Debate Clause Protections

Military Court-Martial (Kelly)
None (if recalled to active duty)

Factor 
Expert View

Civilian Prosecution
“Difficult to prosecute”

Military Court-Martial (Kelly)
“Clash with First Amendment”

While the Republican Trifecta can initiate investigations, legal experts emphasize that the act of “restating the law” is fundamentally distinct from “inciting a rebellion,” making a legal finding of guilt highly improbable in a fair trial. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What is the political impact of these accusations for the six lawmakers?

GoogleAI Mode: “The accusations of seditious behavior and subsequent federal investigations in late 2025 have had a significant and polarizing impact on the six lawmakers—Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan.

1. Elevated National Profiles and Political Symbolism

Rather than silencing the lawmakers, the accusations have elevated them to national symbols of the “resistance” within the Democratic Party.

Patriotic Framing: By framing their video as a defense of the Constitution, these veterans have successfully positioned themselves against the administration’s “authoritarian” rhetoric in the eyes of their supporters.

Public Approval: A December 2025 Economist/YouGov poll found that more Americans (46%) approve of the lawmakers’ message than approve of President Trump’s “sedition” response (26%). 

2. Escalation of Security Threats and Personal Risk

The political impact has translated into tangible personal danger for the lawmakers and their families.

Increased Security Detail: Lawmakers like Elissa Slotkin have reported a massive increase in death threats, a bomb threat at her family farm, and the need for 24/7 security following the President’s “punishable by death” comments.

Criminalization of Dissent: The involvement of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and the Pentagon’s investigation into Mark Kelly has created a climate of “legal harassment” designed to chill dissent among elected officials. 

3. Fundraising and Electoral Impact

The accusations have become a central theme for the upcoming 2026 midterms.

Fundraising Catalyst: Lawmakers like Chris Deluzio (PA) have directly used Trump’s comments to fuel fundraising efforts for their re-election campaigns.

Midterm Vulnerability: While the accusations have energized their base, they also present risks in more conservative districts. For instance, Trump won Deluzio’s district in 2024 by 50.4%, meaning these investigations could be used by Republican challengers to paint the “Seditious Six” as “radicals” who undermine military discipline. 

4. Bipartisan Defiance and Internal GOP Friction

The extreme nature of the accusations (calling for execution) has created rare friction within the Republican Party.

GOP Backlash: Some Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Representative Don Bacon (NE), have publicly rebuked the administration’s investigation, calling the threats of sedition charges “frivolous,” “reckless,” and “amateur hour”.

Solidified Democratic Unity: The “Seditious Six” have remained defiant, issuing joint statements affirming their “moral clarity” and refusal to be intimidated by the administration’s use of federal agencies.”

What are the solutions?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, several solutions have been proposed and implemented by lawmakers, legal experts, and civic organizations to address the current escalation in political rhetoric and the specific investigations into the “Seditious Six.”

1. Constitutional and Legal Defenses

Lawmakers and legal experts are utilizing established constitutional protections to halt or mitigate the impact of the federal investigations.

The Speech or Debate Clause: Attorneys for the six lawmakers are invoking Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which provides immunity to members of Congress for “legislative acts”. They argue that filming a public message regarding federal law falls within their official duties and cannot be used as the basis for a criminal probe.

First Amendment Litigation: Legal groups have filed motions citing the Brandenburg v. Ohio precedent, asserting that political speech is protected unless it is intended to incite “imminent lawless action”. They contend that restating the duty to refuse illegal orders does not meet this criminal threshold.

Whistleblower Protections: Bipartisan legislation like the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2025 is being advanced to protect federal employees who might report the “politicization” of these investigations. 

2. Congressional Oversight and Legislative Checks

Democratic leadership is using their remaining institutional power to counter the executive branch’s moves.

Information Requests: The Senate Judiciary Committee has formally requested internal DOJ and FBI records regarding the requests to interview the “Seditious Six,” aiming to expose potential political interference.

Bipartisan De-escalation: Despite the trifecta, some Republicans have joined Democrats in passing the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes measures to “reassert congressional oversight of military operations” to prevent the unilateral use of military law against political rivals. 

3. Civic and Structural Reforms

Beyond immediate legal battles, several initiatives are focusing on long-term solutions to political violence and polarization.

“Disagree Better” Campaign: Led by governors from both parties, this initiative promotes civil discourse and has been cited as a model for de-escalating “us versus them” mentalities.

Electoral Reforms: Advocacy for ranked-choice voting and open primaries has intensified in 2025 as a way to reduce the influence of extremist rhetoric by incentivizing candidates to appeal to a broader, more moderate base.

Responsible Leadership: Experts emphasize that the most effective solution is for “party leaders to insist on nonviolence” and explicitly denounce violent rhetoric from their own side to avoid normalizing political aggression. 

4. Personal and Institutional Resilience

Legal Defense Funds: Targeted lawmakers like Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin have established independent funds to ensure they have the resources to fight prolonged federal inquiries without relying on government-controlled budgets [H.Res.939].

Strengthening Local Press: Solutions have been proposed to fund local journalism, which tends to focus on shared community problems rather than the “national culture wars” that fuel violent rhetoric.”