They know what they're doing – it needs to stop.
In a country where political language and political violence have become increasingly entangled, Rep. Steve Scalise — himself a survivor of a politically motivated shooting — stepped forward to challenge Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker's assertion that President Trump bears responsibility for fostering a climate of violence. Scalise's counterargument was not a denial that words carry consequence, but rather a mirror turned back: that Pritzker's own repeated Nazi comparisons to Trump had furnished the very vocabulary found in the manifestos of those who attempted assassination. The exchange illuminates one of democracy's most difficult reckonings — that the power of speech to inspire also carries the power to destroy, and that accountability for that power rarely travels in only one direction.
- Gov. Pritzker publicly accused Trump of normalizing political violence, igniting a sharp rebuttal from one of its most visible survivors.
- Scalise, shot and gravely wounded in 2017, carries a moral authority on this subject that few in Congress can claim — and he deployed it without hesitation.
- The tension sharpened when Scalise pointed to a recent shooter's manifesto, which echoed Pritzker's own language comparing Trump and Republicans to Nazis and threats to democracy.
- Rather than disputing that rhetoric shapes behavior, Scalise turned that very premise against Pritzker, demanding the governor examine his own inflammatory words.
- With November elections approaching, neither side is yielding — and the argument over who bears responsibility for political violence is accelerating, not resolving.
Rep. Steve Scalise, who was shot during a 2017 attack on Republican lawmakers at a Virginia baseball practice, carries rare personal authority when the subject turns to political violence. He invoked that authority on Tuesday, appearing on Hannity to directly challenge Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who had told Politico that President Trump had created a climate in which such violence is tolerated. "Governor Pritzker needs to look at the man in the mirror," Scalise said, calling on Democratic leaders to stop what he described as deliberate incitement.
Pritzker's original argument was that leaders set a nation's tone, and that Trump had set one permissive of violence. Scalise did not dispute that premise — he embraced it, then redirected it. His charge was specific: Pritzker had repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler and the Nazis, had said Republicans "cannot know a moment of peace," and had made these comparisons within days of Trump's second inauguration. If rhetoric shapes behavior, Scalise argued, then Pritzker's own words demanded scrutiny.
The argument found recent and troubling evidence. A shooter who opened fire at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner had left behind a manifesto targeting Trump administration officials. When investigators examined his stated motivations, they found language that mirrored Pritzker's own public statements — words like "Nazi" and "threat to democracy." Scalise drew the connection plainly: "Many of those attempted assassins on Donald Trump have regurgitated those very same words that people like Governor Pritzker used."
Scalise widened his argument to warn that the Democratic Party's left wing had grown increasingly hostile toward Republicans and urged voters to weigh that reality heading into November. The exchange between the two men ultimately revealed less about either individual than about the country's unresolved struggle: both agreed that words carry consequences, but each held the other responsible for the most dangerous ones. As elections draw closer, that argument shows no sign of softening.
Rep. Steve Scalise, who survived a gunshot wound to the hip during a 2017 attack on Republican lawmakers at a baseball practice in Virginia, has a particular standing when he speaks about political violence. On Tuesday, he used that standing to directly challenge Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who had told Politico that President Trump had created a climate where such violence is tolerated. "Governor Pritzker needs to look at the man in the mirror, and that's where it needs to start," Scalise said during an appearance on "Hannity." "Stop the inciteful rhetoric that he and others like him are using deliberately. They know what they're doing – it needs to stop."
Pritzker's original claim was straightforward: leaders set the tone in a country, and he believed Trump had set one that made political violence acceptable. The governor pointed to Trump's own past statements as evidence of advocacy for such acts. But Scalise's response pivoted the argument sharply. He did not dispute that rhetoric matters—he agreed entirely. Instead, he argued that Pritzker himself had been the source of the most inflammatory language in recent years.
The specific charge was this: Pritzker had repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler and the Nazis. Scalise cited one instance in which the governor said Republicans "cannot know a moment of peace," and asked what such language was meant to convey. He also recalled that Pritzker had made these comparisons "literally days into Donald Trump's second term." The implication was clear: if rhetoric shapes behavior, then Pritzker's own words deserved scrutiny.
Scalise's argument gained weight from recent events. Days before his television appearance, a shooter had opened fire at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner. The shooter's manifesto identified Trump administration officials as targets—with one notable exception: FBI Director Kash Patel. When investigators examined the shooter's stated motivations, they found language that echoed the very comparisons Pritzker had made. Words like "Nazi" and "threat to democracy" appeared in both the governor's public statements and in the manifesto of someone who had attempted violence.
This convergence formed the core of Scalise's rebuttal. "Many of those attempted assassins on Donald Trump have regurgitated those very same words—'Nazi, threat to democracy'—that people like Governor Pritzker used when they tried to kill the president," he told host Sean Hannity. "So they need to stop doing it." The argument was not that Pritzker had directly incited violence, but that his choice of language had created a rhetorical environment that those who committed violence had then inhabited and repeated.
Scalise broadened the frame beyond this single exchange. He argued that Democratic rhetoric, particularly from the party's left wing, had increasingly targeted Republicans. He suggested that this wing had "taken over" the party and warned voters to pay attention in the November elections. The message was that the choice before Americans was not abstract—it was about which party's methodology and ideology would shape the country's future.
The exchange between Scalise and Pritzker reflects a deeper partisan divide over who bears responsibility for political violence. Both men agreed that rhetoric matters. They disagreed sharply about whose rhetoric was dangerous. For Pritzker, Trump's statements and governance style created the conditions for violence. For Scalise, it was Democratic leaders like Pritzker whose inflammatory language had inspired those who attempted to harm the president. Neither side showed signs of yielding. As the November elections approached, this argument over words and their consequences seemed likely to intensify.
Citas Notables
Our leaders set the tone in this country, and I think that the President of the United States has set a tone where political violence is okay.— Gov. JB Pritzker, to Politico
Many of those attempted assassins on Donald Trump have regurgitated those very same words—'Nazi, threat to democracy'—that people like Governor Pritzker used when they tried to kill the president.— Rep. Steve Scalise, on 'Hannity'
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Scalise says Pritzker needs to "look in the mirror," what exactly is he asking him to see?
He's asking Pritzker to recognize that his own words—the Nazi comparisons, the "no peace" rhetoric—are the very language that shows up in the manifestos of people who actually try to kill Trump. It's a mirror-image accusation: you're blaming Trump for setting a violent tone, but look at what you've been saying.
But does comparing someone to Hitler necessarily inspire violence? Isn't that just strong political speech?
That's the crux of it. Both men agree rhetoric shapes behavior. They just disagree about which rhetoric is dangerous. Scalise is saying that when your words appear verbatim in an assassin's manifesto, you can't claim you're just speaking strongly—you have to ask what you're actually doing.
Scalise himself was shot. Does that give him more authority to make this argument, or does it make him more likely to see threats everywhere?
It gives him standing, certainly. He's not theorizing about political violence—he lived through it. But it also means he has skin in the game. He's not a neutral observer. That's worth holding in mind while listening to what he says.
What does Pritzker actually want to happen? What's his endgame?
He wants Trump held accountable for what he sees as dangerous rhetoric and governance. He believes the president's words and actions create conditions for violence. He's trying to make that case to voters before November.
And Scalise's endgame?
He wants Democratic leaders to stop using inflammatory language about Republicans, and he wants voters to choose his party in November. He's also trying to flip the script—to make Democrats the ones responsible for the violent climate, not Republicans.
So both sides are fighting over who gets to define what caused the violence?
Exactly. And neither side is willing to say their own rhetoric might have played a role. It's a zero-sum argument about blame.