Rhetoric labeling ICE as Nazis draws scrutiny after shootings

A wave of inflammatory labels applied to federal immigration officers by prominent U.S. politicians has drawn renewed scrutiny after two violent incidents involving young men who believed their targets were Nazis. In separate cases over the past week, a would-be attacker shot at a public figure described by opponents as an extremist, while another man on a rooftop fired at people connected to immigration enforcement.

Democratic leaders including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have used terms such as Gestapo, neo-Nazis and secret police to describe workers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics say such language risks inflaming a volatile climate and potentially emboldening individuals who already view law enforcement officers as enemies. They warn that dehumanizing labels can obscure policy disagreements and blur the line between political critique and calls to violence.

The confrontations and rhetoric have intersected with a pair of high-profile incidents connected to allegations of extremism. The first involved a man who shot at Charlie Kirk, a conservative commentator and activist. Authorities said the gunman believed Kirk was associated with extremist ideologies, and the suspect texted his partner that he was tired of Kirk’s “hatred.” Kirk himself is not a Nazi; he is a mainstream conservative figure, but the assailant’s belief that Kirk’s views were beyond the pale helped fuel the violence and produced a national debate over whether rhetoric contributed to the motive.

In a separate case, Joshua Jahn, a man in his twenties, fired on federal agents on a Sacramento rooftop targeting what he had been told were Nazis. Jahn’s bullets were engraved with the slogan “Anti-ICE.” Three detainees were struck by gunfire, and one died from his injuries. The episode is cited by critics as a stark example of how aggressive labeling can be interpreted as a license to act against individuals perceived as opponents of a political cause. The incident has prompted renewed calls for leaders to temper language that casts public employees—particularly those enforcing federal immigration laws—as irredeemably evil.

Newsom’s rhetoric drew particular attention this week after he appeared on Stephen Colbert’s late-night program and described ICE deployments as “authoritarian actions by an authoritarian government.” He said such actions signal a concerning trend, and he was met with applause from audiences. In the same period, Newsom and other senior figures including Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden have at times described political opponents’ strategy as reminiscent of authoritarian or undemocratic eras. Critics argue these comparisons rely on historically loaded imagery that can harden partisan divides and embolden violent acts, or at least encourage individuals to view opponents as existential threats.

Supporters of strong immigration enforcement insist that political disagreement should not be policed by violence and that rhetoric, while heated, is not a direct call to harm. They contend that policing and border policy are legitimate subjects for robust debate, and that the federal government’s duty to enforce laws must be defended in the face of what they see as sympathetic or conspiratorial narratives about agencies like ICE.

Across the spectrum, analysts say the episodes underscore a broader challenge in a polarized era: how to critique government policy without tipping the balance toward dehumanization of public employees or to acts of violence against individuals labeled as inimical to one’s cause. Some scholars and commentators have urged elected leaders to acknowledge that words carry real-world consequences, and to avoid language that could be interpreted as legitimizing aggression toward government workers or other public figures.

Authorities say there is no proven, direct causal link between the rhetoric and the violent acts described, but investigators have emphasized the importance of examining how public discourse shapes perceptions of enemies and justifications for violence. The episodes have spurred renewed discussion about accountability in political dialogue and the role of the ballot in determining who sets the tone for public policy debates.

As the nation processes these incidents, officials and observers alike stress the need for calm, evidence-based discourse that centers policy on facts rather than fear. The overarching question remains: can leaders navigate contentious immigration debates without feeding a narrative that legitimizes violence against individuals seen as political opponents? The answer will likely influence the tone of U.S. political discourse in the months ahead.