Political tensions in the United States soared this week as incendiary rhetoric from former President Donald Trump was swiftly followed by bomb threats targeting Democratic lawmakers. The sequence of events has reignited debate about the boundaries of political speech, the responsibilities of public officials, and the safety of those serving in government.
On November 22, 2025, Michigan State Police responded to a bomb threat at the rural home of Senator Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., in the small village of Holly. According to a spokesperson posting on Slotkin’s official X account, the senator was not present at her residence when the threat was reported. Police conducted a thorough sweep of the property and determined that "no one was in danger." Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA, was subsequently issued 24-hour police protection, a measure her office attributes to the "hundreds and hundreds, if not … closer to 1,000 threats" she has received since Trump accused her of sedition, as reported by NBC News.
That same day, a bomb threat was also called into the district office of Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa. A spokesperson for Houlahan posted on X that the representative and her staff were safe, adding, "We are grateful for our local law enforcement agencies who reacted quickly and are investigating." The spokesperson continued, "As Rep. Houlahan has said many times over, there is no place for threats and political violence in our nation or our political discourse."
These threats came on the heels of a video released by several Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are military veterans or have worked in national security and intelligence, including Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan. In the video, the lawmakers urged members of the military and intelligence community to refuse illegal orders. The group declared, "Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution."
President Trump responded forcefully on his Truth Social account on November 20 and 21, 2025. He wrote, "It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET." Trump amplified his rhetoric, stating, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" He also reposted a message from another user that read, "HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!!"
This language quickly drew national attention, with critics warning that such statements could incite violence. According to Axios, Rep. Jason Crow’s office took the unusual step of requesting a U.S. Capitol Police investigation into President Trump for what it described as "intimidating, threatening, and concerning" social media posts. In an email to Capitol Police, Crow’s office cited the uptick in violent rhetoric and threats following Trump’s posts, stating, "All of these posts by the President of the United States are intimidating, threatening, and concerning. After these messages by the President, our congressional offices have seen a significant uptick in calls and emails with violent rhetoric and additional threats."
The White House, meanwhile, sought to downplay the seriousness of Trump’s comments. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on November 20, 2025, "Let’s be clear about what the president is responding to, because many in this room want to talk about the president’s response, but not what brought the president to responding in this way." She accused the Democratic lawmakers of "encouraging" military personnel to defy the president’s lawful orders and argued, "That is a very dangerous message, and it, perhaps, is punishable by law. I’m not a lawyer, I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice and Department of War to decide." Leavitt insisted that Trump’s posts were not meant as threats, a point she reiterated in multiple press briefings.
Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., offered a more dismissive take, telling HuffPost, "I’m against hanging other senators, I know that’s outlandish. You can ask me again next week, but I think hanging senators might be overkill." Despite the attempt at levity, the underlying concern about escalating political rhetoric was palpable across party lines.
In a subsequent interview with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, Trump sought to clarify his intent: "I’m not threatening them, but I think they’re in serious trouble. I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death. That was seditious behavior, that was a big deal. Today, nothing is a big deal. It’s a softer world. It’s a meeker milder world."
The legal distinctions at play in this controversy are significant. According to reporting from SAN and other outlets, while treason is punishable by death, sedition carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The seditious conspiracy statute applies to those who conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or oppose its authority by force. Insurrection, meanwhile, involves revolt or rebellion against civil authority and is punishable by up to a decade in prison. Trump’s repeated references to "sedition" and "insurrection"—and his claims that such behavior is "punishable by death"—misstate the law, but have nonetheless fueled heated debate.
Sen. Slotkin has defended the Democratic video, writing on X, "This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers, to ensure our military upholds its oath to the Constitution — not a king." In an interview with MS NOW, Slotkin argued, "Leadership climate is set from the top, and if the president is saying you should be hanged, then we shouldn’t be surprised when folks on the ground are going to follow suit and say even worse."
The bomb threat against Slotkin’s home occurred just days after Indiana state Sen. Greg Goode was the victim of a swatting incident, which also followed sharp criticism from Trump and his allies. The pattern has raised alarm among lawmakers and security officials about the potential for political rhetoric to translate into real-world threats.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: How should the nation balance robust debate, even harsh criticism, with the duty to keep public servants safe? With passions running high and the 2026 midterm elections looming, the answer may shape not only the safety of those in office but also the tenor of American democracy itself.
