On Saturday, June 14, 2025, a political extremist who allegedly espouses violent theocratic conspiracy theories went to the homes of at least four lawmakers in Minnesota. At two locations, his assassination plans were frustrated. He shot state Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette, who bravely shielded her daughter, at their home. They were critically wounded but survived; their daughter called 911. He later shot state Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, killing them both.

He arrived at the homes impersonating a police officer, using a decommissioned police vehicle, and other paraphernalia to project the image of a law enforcement officer. His plot was apparently detailed and sophisticated and took time to plan. It is not known at this time—two days later—whether he had help or was part of a wider plot. He left a “manifesto” and a list of 70 elected officials and other leaders, across several states, in a vehicle found at the Hortman home.

The targeted attacks in Minnesota were only one of the plots that were carried out by violent extremists on June 14—all of which appear to have had right-wing, neo-fascist leanings.

In Chicago, Illinois, a man was arrested after he was found impersonating a police officer and carrying at least one loaded firearm, for which he did not have a concealed-carry permit. It is not known whether this individual had any connection to any group linked to the Minnesota attacker.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, a man was seen by event security separating from the main No Kings Day march, moving behind some sort of barrier, and then emerging with a rifle, which he appeared to aim at protesters in anticipation of an attack. Two “peacekeepers” fired at him to prevent the attack, and inadvertently shot a bystander, who later died. The man with the rifle has been charged with homicide, since his unlawful actions led to the death of the bystander.

If these three individuals are not connected by affiliation with a group or a plot, they appear to be connected by a rising tide of violent rhetoric and paranoid thinking among people radicalized by political rhetoric. This means we are all, effectively, called to reaffirm the ethical foundation of our civic processes.

• The Declaration of Independence recognizes as natural, universal, and unalienable, the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and denounces as overtly criminal abuses the arbitrary decisions of King George III.
• The Constitution of the United States is designed to recognize and protect the right of every person to live free from conditions of combat and violence. It opens with the declaration that its purpose is to “establish Justice” and “insure domestic Tranquility”. Even those guilty of unlawful violence are afforded the right to due process, may be detained only on the basis of evidence presented to a judge, and indicted only after presentation of evidence to a grand jury. Arbitrary violence is forbidden even to the most powerful office-holders.
• The Bill of Rights makes clear that rights have primacy over power, that no person may be deprived of life or liberty without due process, and that rights need not be written into law to enjoy full protection of the law.
• Like the Declaration of Independence, the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that no person, including even the most powerful officeholder, may engage in or incite violence against the people or the rule of law. The rejection of that particular abuse of high office was one of the founding principles for the American democratic republic; it was reaffirmed after the Civil War, because of the horrors that come from that standard failing.

In other words, it is both a transcendent moral duty and an overriding legal obligation that all officeholders must never engage in rhetorical incitement of political violence. Neither the First Amendment’s free speech protections nor the “Speech or Debate” clause of Article I of the Constitution permit public officials to use defamatory claims to induce their audience to consider others in political life to be enemies.

Though it is commonly thought that “all politicians lie”, that popular prejudice does not excuse anyone in public office from the duty to speak truthfully and serve honorably. Serving honorably means serving all people in genuine good faith and without leveraging public office for personal or partisan advantage. The honorable service to which officials are sworn requires them to actively, carefully, and conscientiously, refrain from insinuating, inviting, or condoning violence.