STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
In a social media post, the president blamed the shooting on what he called, quote, "deranged radical leftists" and the rhetoric of, quote, "radical left Democrats." So far as we know today, one person committed the shooting, but we do live in a moment of passionate feelings and rhetoric and many other influences, so how do we think about them? Juliette Kayyem has thought about this a lot. She is a former assistant secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration - is now at Harvard. Welcome back.
JULIETTE KAYYEM: Thanks for having me.
INSKEEP: I guess we got to note it's early. Even what we think...
KAYYEM: Yeah.
INSKEEP: ...We know about the suspect may look different tomorrow, but what do you see that is meaningful?
KAYYEM: Well, the most important thing is at least what's been disclosed by the FBI director is that one of the casings that he was using had the words anti-ICE. So you're going to begin with that. And it's very similar to recent killings that we've seen, both in Charlie Kirk and this UnitedHealth CEO killing, in which these men are using these casings and writing on them. Jahn is a drifter. He's 29 years old. Doesn't seem to have held a job. Has this previous marijuana conviction. Seemed to live at least by early reporting in the world of gaming, to a significant extent, and no real political ties - didn't seem to have a strong political identity. This is coming from early reporting again. But then woke up and shot at an ICE facility. I have to say, just what we know now clearly had planned this shooting. He seemed to know where to target and was in an elevated position.
INSKEEP: Is this a thing that happens a lot - someone who doesn't seem all that political, pulls a political cause seemingly out of the air or off the internet?
KAYYEM: It is. I mean, these guys are living in a culture that, like, we're not - most people are not experiencing. You know, it's sites like Halo and Steam. One report had Jahn sort of logging 10,000 hours of gaming, and it's a world that's, like, doesn't really exist in our world. There are sort of pretend atmospheres and people and animals and their extreme irony, extreme internet subcultures with memes. We - our brains literally cannot process it. What we're seeing now, at least with the Charlie Kirk murder and this one so far, is these guys are very steeped in this.
In terms of radicalization, we really are just beginning to learn what's going on. The ties that the Trump administration are making between this killing and a radical left or the Democratic Party are just not there. You know, we think of radicalization as you know, you have a terrorist leader says - who you say, you know, go kill someone, and they do that, right? So that's one type of way of thinking about it.
Another way is what's called sort of stochastic radicalization, which Trump's critics have used in the past, which is he elevates sort of violence, and then people go out and follow him. What we're seeing now is people who seem to be turning to violence without a leader, without any clear identity or ties to a group. And that radicalization process is unique and it's scary 'cause we don't really know how to stop it.
INSKEEP: Well, with that as the background, then. We have officials talking about dangerous rhetoric or rhetoric...
KAYYEM: Yeah.
INSKEEP: ...That they view as to be false and dangerous. How should we think about which rhetoric, political rhetoric is dangerous?
KAYYEM: Well, there's no question that the rhetoric - and this I will be both sides on, would - we would benefit as a nation of toning it down. But what we shouldn't view - what we shouldn't do is silence the important debates that we're having in a democracy about clearly contentious and controversial issues. The White House loops in a killer with a movement, with criticism of the White House, all in one fell swoop. And that's what Trump does with his language. He says sort of an agenda. Well, what's an agenda? Agenda is someone like me who opposes ICE's actions right now. That's very different than focusing on the violence and the violence when it targets ICE, when it targets a right-wing leader or when it targets the left or a left-wing leader. And in that, we can be consistent in condemning violence regardless of the motive.
INSKEEP: Is there a difference between rhetoric that attacks a policy and rhetoric that attacks a person?
KAYYEM: There is. So, like, if you - I mean, look, if you do - if someone says, this person - let's just say the president of the United States - is very bad, and we should kill him. That would strike me, at least in parts, you know, depending on where you're saying and who you're saying it to...
INSKEEP: Yeah.
KAYYEM: ...As dangerous. But on the other hand, saying, I don't like what ICE is doing, and it feels autocratic and lawless, that is legitimate criticism of a very controversial policy by the Trump administration.
INSKEEP: Juliette Kayyem, formerly with the Department of Homeland Security, now with Harvard. Thanks so much.
KAYYEM: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
