Research indicates that incendiary rhetoric from political leaders, including Donald Trump, correlates with increased real-world violence. Studies link specific social media activity and elite speech to rising hate crimes, suggesting that such language emboldens individuals to act on pre-existing prejudices against minority groups and political opponents.
Political Rhetoric and the Capitol Riot
On January 6, 2021, President Trump delivered a speech to supporters in which he lamented election fraud and urged them to march on the Capitol. During the address, he directed the crowd to fight like hell
as Congress worked to certify the victory of President Biden. This event led to a second impeachment of Trump, with critics—including then-acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller—blaming the remarks for inciting the subsequent riot.
While the January 6th insurrection remains a focal point, research suggests that the use of violent rhetoric by political leaders is not a unique event. Both conservative websites and political leaders at state and local levels increasingly use language that demonizes opponents. Research suggests that although it is often difficult to draw a direct line between a specific leader’s statement and a subsequent act of violence, incendiary speech can provide direction for violence, complicate law enforcement responses, and heighten fear among vulnerable communities.
Measurable Correlations to Hate Crimes
Studies indicate a correlation between hostile political rhetoric and measurable increases in violence. In 2016, anti-Muslim discourse on platforms like Facebook—prompted by comments from candidate Trump—corresponded with a 32% increase in hate crimes against Muslim communities in the days that followed. A similar, though less pronounced, trend was observed regarding the Hispanic community.
The research suggests that rhetoric does not necessarily create new attitudes, but rather emboldens individuals to act on views they previously concealed. According to one expert noted, this shift has altered discourse norms, making it more acceptable among more people to denigrate and attack other groups of human beings.
Amplification Through Media and Social Networks
The reach of incendiary rhetoric is expanded by a cycle of amplification involving social media and traditional news outlets. When national leaders with large followings make remarks, those statements are retweeted and shared millions of times. These posts then drive coverage in traditional media, which broadcasts the rhetoric to broader audiences.
This process shifts the Overton Window,
a concept describing the range of discourse considered acceptable in public life. As extreme rhetoric is normalized, topics that were once taboo enter mainstream conversation. The effect is further compounded when local figures, who may have their own loyal followings, adopt the language of national leaders, creating a feedback loop that sustains the rhetoric beyond the initial statement.
International Evidence on Hateful Speech
Research supports the link between online rhetoric and physical violence. A study conducted in Germany found that increases in anti-refugee sentiment on Facebook directly preceded spikes in violence against refugees. When Facebook experienced outages or when news cycles were dominated by other events, the level of violence fell.
Similar findings in Sweden and across Europe show that exposure to violent political language increases negative emotions toward target communities and raises public support for political violence. These findings suggest that when political leaders use divisive language, they not only increase the likelihood of immediate conflict but also contribute to a more dangerous and polarized political climate overall.
Related reading