The terms insurrection and domestic terrorism are constantly tossed around in public discourse, often as political weapons. These aren’t insults or opinions—they are legal concepts defined by conduct and intent, not ideology or party affiliation.
Insurrection refers to organized force used to obstruct the lawful operation of government. Domestic terrorism involves criminal acts dangerous to human life, carried out to intimidate, coerce, or influence government conduct. In both cases, the analysis starts with one thing: what is actually happening on the ground.
Right now, facts matter more than rhetoric.
Across the country, we are seeing documented instances of civilians:
• Tracking and stalking law enforcement operations
• Organizing trainings on how to physically interfere with arrests
• Using vehicles to assault or impede officers
• Doxxing law enforcement agents and their families
• Inflicting serious bodily harm on officers
These are not symbolic protests. These are deliberate actions aimed at obstructing the enforcement of U.S. law. When such conduct is coordinated, sustained, and directed at government authority, the legal framework shifts—regardless of political agenda.
Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security do not conduct investigations based on slogans or moral narratives. They assess behavior, coordination, targets, and intent. That is how the rule of law functions.
Inflammatory Rhetoric
This brings us to political leadership.
To be clear: divisive rhetoric is not illegal. Elected officials have broad First Amendment protections and are free to criticize policy and law enforcement. That is not the issue.
The issue is consequence.
When public officials repeatedly dehumanize law enforcement by calling them “Nazis” or “Gestapo,” frame lawful enforcement as fascism, or invoke Holocaust imagery—such as comparing immigration enforcement to the rounding up of Jews in Nazi Germany—they are not making a serious policy argument. They are pouring accelerant on an already volatile environment.
Comparing the systematic genocide of six million Jewish citizens—carried out by a totalitarian regime—to U.S. law enforcement officers upholding federal law is not just historically inaccurate. It is morally grotesque. It trivializes the Holocaust and falsely recasts public servants as existential enemies.
This rhetoric is not criminal. But words spoken from positions of power shape behavior. They legitimize confrontation, normalize violence, and signal moral permission to those already inclined to obstruct or attack law enforcement.
When civilians act on that framing—when they show up armed, organized, and trained to interfere with arrests—the line between reckless speech and functionally aiding and abetting destabilization becomes impossible to ignore.
The Rule Of Law Isn’t Optional
A society governed by law cannot function if:
• Enforcement of statutes is treated as tyranny
• Violence against officers is reframed as virtue
• Historical atrocities are weaponized to excuse present-day lawlessness
If we want a serious conversation about extremism, accountability, and political violence, it must begin with this principle:
The rule of law applies to everyone—or it collapses for everyone.
Not selectively. Not rhetorically. Not when it’s politically convenient.
This is not a partisan position.
It is the baseline for a functioning democracy.
Those stoking mass unrest, political violence, and open defiance of U.S. law are engaging in behaviors that echo comparable dynamics that led to the U.S. Civil War. Southern states seceded in direct defiance of federal law. The result was one of the darkest chapters in American history and an immeasurable loss of human life.
Americans across the political spectrum must cool the rhetoric. Regardless of personal political beliefs, it is not in our nation’s interest to continue marching toward widespread civil conflict while being egged on by leaders who never bear the consequences.
If you don’t like the law, there is a remedy: vote for lawmakers who will change it.
What you shouldn’t do is sacrifice your freedom, future, or life at the urging of political actors who will never stand beside you in court or prison.
Throwing your body on the line because a politician told you to isn’t heroic. It isn’t compassion. Interfering with law enforcement while armed isn’t bravery—it’s playing Russian roulette with your life.
Extremists thrive in moments like this. They embed themselves into various causes, exploit outrage, escalate confrontation, and then watch predictable consequences unfold. I know these tactics well because I spent decades entrenched in political extremism and understand exactly how these cycles operate.
It’s the same strategy I once used as an extremist leader: capitalize on an inflammatory issue, exploit it, and predictably watch it spiral.
When the dust settles, politicians who stoked the flames move on. The civilians who followed their lead are left facing criminal charges, prison sentences, permanent injuries, or graves.
For those outraged today, an honest question must be asked:
Were you this outraged five, ten, or twenty years ago when the same laws were enforced by the same agencies?
If not—what changed? The law, or the politics?
Selective outrage is not principle. Engaging in felonious conduct at the behest of political theater will not feel righteous when you are explaining your new criminal record to a judge—or an employer.
Actions have lasting consequences.
I write this not as a partisan, but as someone who knows exactly where extremist rhetoric leads. My aim is not to shame, but to warn.
History is very clear about what happens when the rule of law collapses.
