Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, on CNN Tuesday dismissed critics who argue that comparing political opponents to Hitler or fascists contributes to political violence, saying they are absolutely wrong. The comments came in the wake of Charlie Kirk's shooting at a Utah college campus on Sept. 10.
“They’re absolutely wrong. Here’s the reality: they don’t want American people to know any forms of history. We know that there was news out today about the president going after yet more historical information. The reality is that when we look at what is taking place, when you look at an authoritarian, and what they do is they try to basically say you have to do whatever the government says, even if that means that your personal freedoms are going to be subjected to whatever we say, whether it’s right or wrong. Right now, our personal freedoms are constantly under attack,” Crockett said during the CNN interview.
Crockett argued that violence is not acceptable whether it is used as a tool by those in power or directed from the opposition. “It seems like violence is okay if it is only because the man that is currently serving in the White House asked for it. Even when we look at ICE officers and what they are doing to those that are accused of violating our law, that is what they think violence is okay for. But then when it ends up happening, and it comes back on the other side, they claim that it’s because of the Democrats and them using words like fascist,” she added.
Crockett has a history of combative rhetoric about political opponents, including referring to former President Donald Trump as a “wannabe Hitler” during a prior interview. She defended the use of sharp language as separate from calls to violence, saying, “Me disagreeing with you, me calling you, you know, ‘wannabe Hitler,’ all those things are like, not necessarily saying, ‘Go out and hurt somebody.’ But when you’re literally telling people at rallies, ‘Yeah, beat them up’ and that kind of stuff, you are promoting a culture of violence.”
The shooting of Kirk has intensified national discussion about political violence and the role of rhetoric in fueling or condoning it. Investigators said bullet casings found near the crime scene were inscribed with anti-fascist messages, adding a layer of complexity to the ongoing probe and public debate about how language toward political opponents is perceived and reacted to.
The incident has drawn reactions from across the political spectrum. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., urged Democrats to stop comparing Trump to Hitler during a CNN interview that aired Sunday, saying that such analogies risk inflaming tensions further. The interview occurred after Kirk was shot but before his death was confirmed, according to network notes.
“The temperature needs to come down,” Fetterman said. “I think you just don’t ever, ever compare anyone to Hitler and those kinds of extreme things.”
The Kirk case has prompted lawmakers to re-examine the boundaries of political rhetoric and responsibility. Some Republicans have accused elements of the media and Democratic opponents of contributing to a climate in which violence is seen as an acceptable response to political differences. Others, including Crockett, argue that holding elected officials and commentators to high standards of discourse is essential to maintaining democratic norms.
Crockett’s remarks and the surrounding coverage illustrate a broader, continuing debate about whether harsh political rhetoric translates into real-world violence and how to balance free speech with concerns about public safety. As investigators continue to piece together the events surrounding Kirk’s death and review the tone of political argument in the United States, lawmakers say it is critical to focus on verifiable facts, avoid scapegoating, and promote peaceful civic engagement.
The discussion shows no sign of abating as parties seek to define the boundaries of acceptable political rhetoric in a polarized environment. Officials emphasize that violence is unacceptable, regardless of ideology, and that public dialogue should strive to condemn violence while encouraging accountability and the rule of law. As investigations continue, a clear, evidence-based narrative about the role of rhetoric in shaping political action remains a priority for lawmakers, journalists, and the public alike.