Personal attacks

On a Saturday in April, I donned a green ballgown and trekked across the district to the Washington Hilton for the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Along with 2,500 other guests, I looked forward to a luxurious meal and waited in cautious anticipation for President Donald Trump’s first-ever speech at the annual event. He had suggested he would excoriate the Fourth Estate for fake news, unfavorable coverage, and an absence of ethics.

I wasn’t even finished with the salad course when gunfire rang out, Secret Service agents swarmed to evacuate Cabinet officials, and my fun night turned into a work night.

Less than two hours after the incident, Trump called on Americans to recommit to resolving differences peacefully. He had prepared an incendiary roast of the media, but instead commended them for doing their jobs under pressure.

The tone lasted less than 24 hours. From the same podium the next day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt listed nine examples of Democratic elected officials describing the president using terms like fascist, authoritarian, and dictator in what she called a “left-wing cult of hatred.”

“This hateful and constant and ­violent rhetoric directed at President Trump day after day after day for 11 years has helped to legitimize this violence and bring us to this dark moment,” Leavitt said.

She has a point: Trump has now faced three assassination attempts. But if there’s a standard for language, it surely applies to both parties. Yet many Republicans and Democrats blame each other for the problem, suggesting a new era of conciliatory speech is not yet on the horizon.

Most Americans still affirm that political violence of any kind is wrong, although the trend lines have fluctuated. In 2021, roughly 35% of Republicans said in a Public Religion Research Institute survey (PRRI) that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country. That rate had dropped to 19% in the January 2026 survey. But Democrats have trended upward, from around 10% in 2021 to 17% this year, according to PRRI. On average, 1 in 5 Americans think some violence could be acceptable.

What’s responsible for the shift? The January PRRI survey found that a little more than half of Americans think harsh and violent language in politics contributes to violent actions. Meanwhile, equal rates of conservatives and liberals blame the other side for political violence.

That goes for politicians, too. While Democrats I spoke to acknowledged the need to tone down the rhetoric across the board, they also pointed to President Trump.

“I don’t want to concede the notion that this is primarily a Democratic problem, because people who ask that usually don’t even acknowledge the violent language that President Trump uses all the time,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. “I’m not perfect, but I try really hard to state my position plainly, but without saying something that could be taken the wrong way.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told me politicians “need to turn the temperature down on both sides, by focusing on policies, not people, positions on issues rather than personal attacks. But I see way more of it on the Republican side. All you have to do is literally listen to the president.”

In March, Trump posted that he was “glad” former FBI Director Robert Mueller had died. In 2024, he referred to the Biden White House as a “Gestapo administration.” Over the past year, he has called out state lawmakers from Ohio and Indiana when they refused to vote for redistricting before the midterm elections. Many of those lawmakers received death threats or were swatted.

“Finding a way to sustain legitimate, if harsh, policy criticism while tamping down on personal criticism? Boy, that’s a really fundamental problem in a free society,” said Michael Cornfield, a retired rhetoric professor at George Washington University.

Cornfield said while speech cannot be proven as the main cause behind violence, elected officials bear a special responsibility to discourage violent rhetoric. The advent of the internet has contributed to the problem, he said, along with shrinking margins of power in Congress: When bills come down to only a handful of votes, the Capitol becomes a political pressure cooker.

“It’s like a very fierce sports competition where the championship is at stake,” Cornfield said. “And that turns up the heat all by itself.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the current chair of the Democratic Strategic Communications Committee, told me he wants to expand the conversation about violent rhetoric outside of Washington.

“It’s a problem we’re seeing throughout our country, from poll workers to federal judges,” he said. “There’s one thing everybody should realize: We will not solve this problem if we double down on partisan rhetoric.”

What’s Booker’s solution? When I asked for a tangible example, he simply suggested every American needs to choose whether he or she will “add to the toxicity in our body politic” or “be a healer.”

“I’m looking at myself,” he said. “The only person I can control is what I do, and I’m going to continue more and more calls for grace in our politics.”

When I asked retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., about the situation, he called violent political rhetoric a bipartisan affliction. He blamed Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for telling conservative Supreme Court justices they would “pay the price” for conservative rulings. He also calls much of what Trump posts online “ill-advised.”

“It’s at both ends of the spectrum. I can find as many examples of Republicans and conservatives saying [expletive] they shouldn’t say as I can liberals.”

In the past several years, Tillis has received death threats over voicemail and threats to his home. Still, he rejects the presumption that toning down the rhetoric means not responding to intimidation tactics.

“If you use vulgar language and you get in my face, I’m going to use vulgar language and get in your face to let you know how it feels,” Tillis said. “But it would never occur to me to start that way or even think that people are evil in their intent. We just have different ideological worldviews.”

Tillis concludes: “We all have to realize that we are all a part of the problem.”