On September 16, 2025, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stood before reporters and delivered a message he hoped would resonate across the political spectrum: it was time, he said, to "turn down the temperature and the violent rhetoric." Johnson’s comments came in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, an event that has sent shockwaves through America’s already polarized political landscape.
"Leaders cannot call their political opponents 'Nazis' and 'fascists' and 'enemies of the state' because they disagree with their policy priorities. I mean, this is something we should have learned in grade school," Johnson declared, according to reporting from CNN and other outlets. He emphasized that such language is "not helpful," and warned, "This type of language spurs on depraved people, deranged people, who take that as a cue and this tragic phenomenon played out this week in Utah."
Johnson’s plea for civility might have seemed like a breath of fresh air in an era of caustic political exchanges. But within hours, his remarks became the center of a firestorm—not because of what he said, but because of who, critics argued, he seemed to overlook. Social media lit up with accusations of hypocrisy, as critics pointed out the long and well-documented history of similar rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and some of his closest allies.
Video clips quickly circulated online, including a viral post by commentator Ron Filipkowski, who shared four separate instances of Trump calling Democrats "the enemy from within." The clips, Filipkowski noted, were just a small sample: "There are literally hundreds of these going back years." Others chimed in, with one user, Brian Mistrot, writing, "This might well be one of the most duplicitous things Johnson has ever said—and that’s a high bar. Rarely a day goes by without Trump, Miller or Vance doing exactly what he criticizes the left for."
According to CNN, Johnson’s call for restraint came directly in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk, a prominent figure on the right whose activism and media presence had made him a lightning rod for controversy. The Utah tragedy, Johnson argued, was a stark reminder that "violent rhetoric" can have real-world consequences. But his critics were quick to argue that such reminders should apply to all sides, not just his political opponents.
It’s a debate that has bedeviled American politics for years: where is the line between passionate advocacy and dangerous incitement? Johnson’s remarks, as reported by multiple outlets, were unequivocal in their condemnation of inflammatory language. "Leaders cannot call their political opponents 'Nazis,' 'fascists,' and 'enemies of the state' because they disagree with their policy priorities," he said. Yet, as many pointed out, Trump has repeatedly used such language, not only during his presidency but throughout his ongoing campaign activities.
The context for Johnson’s comments is as important as the content. The assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah has brought renewed attention to the ways in which political rhetoric can escalate into violence. Johnson referenced this directly, saying that language from leaders "spurs on depraved people, deranged people, who take that as a cue and this tragic phenomenon played out this week in Utah." For Johnson, the lesson was clear: political leaders should lead by example, setting a tone that discourages extremism rather than fueling it.
But the reaction from critics was swift and unforgiving. Many saw Johnson’s remarks as an attempt to place blame solely on the political left, while ignoring the inflammatory rhetoric that has come from prominent figures on the right. The fact that Trump and his allies have, on numerous occasions, labeled Democrats as "the enemy from within" was not lost on observers. As CNN highlighted, Johnson’s comments seemed to gloss over the very real contributions of his own party’s leaders to the climate of hostility he now decried.
Social media, as is often the case, became the battleground where these arguments played out in real time. Footage of Johnson’s press conference was shared widely, accompanied by clips of Trump’s most incendiary statements. The juxtaposition was striking: on one hand, a call for civility and restraint; on the other, a record of rhetoric that many see as anything but restrained.
For some, the episode was emblematic of a larger pattern in American politics—a tendency for leaders to denounce behaviors in their opponents that they tolerate, or even encourage, in their own ranks. Johnson’s critics argued that his failure to acknowledge Trump’s rhetoric undermined his message and exposed a double standard. As one commentator put it, "It’s not enough to call for civility; you have to practice it, and you have to hold your own side accountable as well."
Supporters of Johnson, however, have argued that his message was aimed at all political leaders, regardless of party. They point out that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was an act of violence that should serve as a wake-up call for everyone in public life. In their view, Johnson’s call to "turn down the temperature" is a necessary first step toward healing a divided nation.
The debate over political rhetoric is hardly new. American politics has always been rough-and-tumble, with sharp words and strong disagreements. But in recent years, the tone has grown more hostile, and the stakes have become higher. The events in Utah have forced a reckoning with the ways in which words can become weapons, and with the responsibility that comes with wielding them.
According to CNN and other news outlets, Johnson’s remarks have reignited conversations about accountability and leadership. Should political leaders be held to a higher standard? Is it possible to have passionate debates without resorting to dehumanizing language? And perhaps most importantly, can calls for civility be taken seriously if they are not accompanied by a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths within one’s own party?
As the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the assassination of Charlie Kirk has become more than just a tragedy. It has become a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over the tone and tenor of American political life. Whether Johnson’s call for restraint will lead to meaningful change remains to be seen. But for now, the debate rages on, a reminder that words matter—and that the responsibility for what happens next rests with leaders on both sides of the aisle.
The aftermath of Johnson’s remarks has left many Americans asking hard questions about the future of political discourse. In a nation where passions run high and divisions run deep, finding common ground can feel like an impossible task. But as the events of the past week have shown, the consequences of failing to do so can be all too real.
As tempers flare and accusations fly, the call for civility remains as urgent as ever. Whether it will be heeded—or simply become one more talking point in the endless cycle of partisan conflict—will depend on the willingness of leaders, and the public, to look beyond their own grievances and demand better from everyone involved.
