Arizona politics has never been for the faint of heart, but recent events have thrust the state into the national spotlight in a way that’s hard to ignore. On September 25, 2025, Arizona Republican state Representative John Gillette publicly called for the execution of Democratic U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal. His comments, posted on social media, have ignited a firestorm of outrage and renewed debate over the boundaries of political speech, party accountability, and the dangers of online disinformation.
Gillette’s incendiary statement was a direct response to a video clip of Jayapal, which had been circulating in right-wing corners of social media since the spring. The video, originally from a March 2025 Zoom session, was part of Jayapal’s “Resistance Lab” series and focused on organizing peaceful protest and nonviolent resistance against the MAGA agenda. In her full remarks, Jayapal encouraged supporters to “seed, participate, and coordinate these nonviolent resistance actions that are going to make a difference over the next coming months.” She drew parallels to the labor movement, saying, “We might call this getting strike ready. I think of it as getting us strike ready, or street ready, and part of that is understanding our own strength.”
But the version that rocketed across social media—shared by an account named “Patriot Oasis”—was stripped of context. It started mid-sentence, omitting Jayapal’s emphasis on nonviolence, and was paired with an inflammatory caption: “BREAKING: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) calls on Democrats to be ‘strike ready’ and ‘street ready.’ This is a CLEAR call to violence!” The post tagged FBI Director Kash Patel and fanned the flames of a narrative that Democratic lawmakers were inciting unrest, a notion that has gained traction in some conservative circles, especially in the wake of the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Gillette’s response to the video was chillingly explicit. “Until people like this, that advocate for the overthrow of the American government are tried convicted and hanged … it will continue,” he wrote, referring to Jayapal and, by extension, others he perceives as threats to the nation. According to reporting by The New Republic, Gillette’s words were the only instance of an elected official actually calling for political violence in this episode—despite the accusations leveled at Jayapal.
For those familiar with Gillette’s record, the escalation was not entirely surprising. As noted by Arizona Mirror and Phoenix New Times, Gillette has long been a lightning rod for controversy in Arizona’s political landscape. He’s known for making racist and Islamophobic statements, including referring to Islam as a “construct of the Marxist left” and calling its followers “savages.” He’s also accused Democrats of hating America and supporting terrorism, often with little evidence or context. When an ethics complaint was filed against him for these remarks, the Republican chair of the state House Ethics Committee dismissed it, citing his First Amendment rights.
Gillette’s rhetoric isn’t limited to social media posts. He has publicly supported the violent protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, referring to them as “political prisoners” and arguing they deserved pardons. According to Phoenix New Times, he’s made it clear that he believes unity between the parties is no longer possible, writing to his colleagues, “The tone was set by your party; unity is no longer an option. We handed you an olive ranch, and you broke it. Your party invited the radicals to the table and they took over. Now you own them. As the Jews did at Pearl Harbor, Radical Muslims on 9/11, your party has woken the sleeping giant.”
Democratic lawmakers in Arizona have been vocal in their condemnation of Gillette’s latest outburst. Nancy Gutierrez, a Democratic legislator, posed a pointed question: “What will he need to say before Republican leadership in the House takes action? This is language that leads to violence.” Her frustration is echoed by others who argue that if a Democrat had called for the execution of a Republican lawmaker, the response from both law enforcement and conservative media would be swift and severe.
Despite the backlash, Gillette has not backed down. After receiving criticism from Democratic colleagues in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, he doubled down on his stance, asserting that the time for unity had passed and blaming Democrats for inviting “radicals” into the political process. His refusal to retract or clarify his statements has further inflamed tensions within the Arizona legislature.
Meanwhile, the original video of Jayapal continues to be misrepresented online. Reporters from Arizona Mirror watched the entire session and confirmed that it featured a speaker who studied political violence and spoke about nonviolence. There was, they reported, “no call for violence or the overthrow of the government” in Jayapal’s remarks. Instead, the session centered on strategies for peaceful resistance and civic engagement.
The controversy comes at a time of heightened political polarization in Arizona, a state with a long history of contentious politics and a reputation for sending firebrands to the legislature. Kingman, the district Gillette represents, has been described by some as a hotbed for extremist views, with a history that includes ties to figures like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. As Phoenix New Times put it, “You get the picture: crazyland.”
For now, Republican leadership in Arizona has taken no public action against Gillette, even as calls for accountability grow louder. Some argue that the lack of response reflects a broader unwillingness within the party to confront extremism in its ranks, while others maintain that Gillette’s statements, however distasteful, fall under the protection of free speech.
The debate over Gillette’s comments and the broader issue of political rhetoric is unlikely to subside soon. As Arizona—and the nation—grapples with the consequences of inflammatory language and misinformation, the line between protected speech and incitement remains as fraught and contested as ever. In the end, the episode serves as a stark reminder of how quickly context can be lost in the digital age, and how dangerous the consequences can be when words are weaponized for political ends.
