Trump post-shooting – MS NOW analyst Susan Del Percio rejected Trump’s framing that his impact makes him a target, saying the administration’s division and messaging drive violence.
President Donald Trump delivered remarks shortly after another assassination attempt, arguing that people target the most impactful figures.
On Sunday, MS NOW political analyst Susan Del Percio sharply disputed that framing, saying it misses the point—and that the Trump administration’s politics help create the climate in which political violence becomes possible.
Del Percio’s critique centered on what she described as the administration’s effect on the country’s social fabric.. In her view. Trump’s insistence that “doing a really good job” makes him more likely to be targeted turns cause and effect on its head.. “What’s wrong” with the president’s argument. Del Percio said. is the assumption that an assassination attempt is essentially a byproduct of prominence or effectiveness.
Instead, she argued that the administration’s strategy has been to divide rather than unify.. Del Percio said the administration has “worked so hard to divide this country. ” and that the result is a political atmosphere where violence is tolerated—or at least rationalized—when it aligns with those in power.. Her broader claim was not that Trump’s policy record alone explains threats and attacks. but that the administration’s messaging and relationship to political opponents changes how some people see violence as acceptable or meaningful.
In Del Percio’s telling, the violence becomes tied to allegiance.. She argued that the administration “doesn’t mind the violence” when it serves the people who support it—while the same behavior is treated very differently when directed at those the administration sees as enemies.. That distinction. she suggested. can muddy public understanding of violence itself and shape how supporters and opponents react to events in real time.
The exchange followed a question posed to Trump after another incident in which he was reportedly targeted.. Del Percio pointed to the president’s remarks as a sign that the administration may use the episode in its own political storytelling.. Alex Witt asked whether Trump’s framing would be reflected in White House messaging. and Del Percio indicated the possibility was real—while still describing the logic as deeply flawed.
A key moment for the debate was Trump’s attempt to draw a historical parallel, including Abraham Lincoln.. Trump suggested that people go after figures who have made the biggest impact. not those who “don’t do much.” He also joked about the danger of the profession. prompting visible reactions from officials standing behind him.. Del Percio’s pushback. however. focused less on the historical analogy and more on what she said the administration is effectively teaching the public about violence: that it can be interpreted as validation. rather than as a warning.
There are practical consequences to that kind of framing in presidential politics.. When an administration treats threats as evidence that it is “doing something right. ” it risks encouraging the idea that confrontation escalates alongside effectiveness.. Supporters may hear confirmation. while opponents—and people inclined toward extremism—may interpret the rhetoric as permission or a cue that violence will be met with attention rather than condemnation.. Del Percio’s argument lands squarely in that territory: she suggests the administration’s polarization is the engine. and the threats are the symptom.
Her comments also arrive amid heightened attention to political security and the way political leaders speak immediately after violent events.. For the White House. the choice of language matters not just for messaging strategy. but for public safety and for the tone it sets in hearings. investigations. and campaign narratives.. Even when officials insist their words are about toughness or resilience. the public often reads presidential remarks as signals of what the administration prioritizes—unity or victory. accountability or blame.
Looking ahead. the question is whether the White House leans harder into the “impact makes you a target” narrative or pivots to a more direct focus on preventing violence across the board.. Del Percio’s critique suggests that. in her view. the administration has incentives to frame attacks as political proof rather than as a shared national danger.. If that approach continues. the political fight may extend beyond policy disputes and into an increasingly unstable struggle over who is responsible for the climate in which violence can occur.