Words Have Consequences: A Call for Leaders to Stand Against Hate

This weekend, 15 people were murdered during a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach in what Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called “an act of pure evil, an act of terror and an act of antisemitism.” Antisemitic incidents in Australia have reached five times their historical average since October 2023. In June, a gunman targeted Minnesota lawmakers in their homes, killing former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and wounding Senator John Hoffman and his wife. Federal documents described the attacker as acting with “the intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate Minnesota legislators.” He carried a list of nearly 70 targets, all Democrats. These are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable consequence of years of dehumanizing rhetoric from leaders who should know better. The pattern is well documented. Before the 2019 El Paso massacre that killed 23 people, Trump had run more than 2,000 Facebook ads using the word “invasion” to describe immigration, language the shooter echoed in his manifesto. Research from the Brookings Institution confirms that “incendiary rhetoric of political leaders can make political violence more likely, give violence direction, complicate the law enforcement response, and increase fear in vulnerable communities.” “If the people who lead us are using violent or dehumanizing rhetoric, then it’s a signal to their supporters that violent rhetoric is acceptable, and that violent action might be acceptable,” says Johns Hopkins political scientist Lilliana Mason. Two out of three Americans now believe harsh political rhetoric encourages violence. This is not a partisan opinion. It is what the evidence shows. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has stated: “More must be done to address the divisive climate of hate in America. That begins with leaders from all walks of life and from all sectors of society forcefully condemning anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hate whenever it occurs.” For President Trump and leaders in Congress, the moment demands more than selective outrage or partisan blame. It requires the kind of moral clarity that names hatred for what it is, whether it targets Jews, immigrants, LGBTQ Americans, or political opponents. The question is whether this administration will lead toward unity or continue to fan the flames.