Did Biden call for a hit on Donald Trump?

By Matthew Hayward

In a time when discussions of civil unrest and even civil war permeate the national conversation, on July 8, 2024, President Joe Biden made a statement to his donors that has since sparked significant controversy: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye." This remark, coming from the highest office in the land, raises serious concerns about the impact of such language on an already tense political environment.

With the nation still reeling from January 6th, where Trump has been alleged to have incited an insurrection, and the ongoing heated debates about election integrity, Biden's words fanned the flames of division.

Given Biden's access to intelligence from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which are acutely aware of the effects of political radicalization, it cannot be argued that Biden was unaware his comments could be interpreted literally, especially when his supporters and the liberal media regularly quote Trump out of context alleging he was being literal about all sorts of hyperbolic statements.

For example, Trump's comment about being a dictator for a day was clearly a joke, yet it has been taken out of context by critics to suggest that he genuinely harbors authoritarian ambitions. Similarly, during a White House coronavirus task force briefing on April 23, 2020, Trump suggested that disinfectants could potentially be used to treat COVID-19, which was widely misinterpreted as a serious recommendation for people to inject bleach. In both cases, only those deeply entrenched in partisan narratives would take these comments at face value.

Historically, we've seen the power of presidential rhetoric to either calm or inflame public sentiment. From FDR's fireside chats that reassured a nation during the Great Depression to the divisive speeches that have occasionally emerged in recent years, the spoken word from the Oval Office holds immense sway. In Biden's case, his comment about Trump could only exacerbate tensions and incite individuals already on edge.

The consistent rhetoric from Biden and other prominent political leaders about "democracy being on the ballot" further heightens this risk. When the narrative suggests that a political opponent is a direct threat to the nation's democratic fabric, it can motivate individuals to take extreme actions, believing they are defending their country from an existential threat.

The legal landscape adds another layer of complexity. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024, has granted broad immunity to Presidents for their official acts. This decision, while primarily focused on shielding former President Trump from prosecution for actions during his tenure, extends to all sitting presidents, including Biden. This means that even if Biden's words were found to incite violence, the immunity conferred by this ruling could protect him from legal consequences.

This situation underscores a broader issue about the boundaries of presidential speech and the responsibilities that come with such a powerful platform. Should it be legal to call for your opponent to be put in the crosshair, easily taken out of context to be associated with assassination, similar to how the mob works, not ordering hits but instead just telling people to take care of their problems?

Sources:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969

Research on political rhetoric and radicalization

USA PATRIOT Act and its implications

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Trump v. United States, 2024

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

By Matthew Hayward 9/19/2025 The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning. This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement. Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

Search This Blog