Like him or not, two assassination attempts on former President Trump should cause everyone to pause and unequivocally condemn political violence. However, this has not happened. In this article, EEW explores how the media's handling of these incidents reveals troubling double standards and raises questions about fairness in coverage.

Article By Dawn Reed // Political Violence // EEW Magazine Online

Twice in just over two months, former President Donald Trump has narrowly escaped assassination attempts. One would expect a unified condemnation of such violence, but instead, parts of the media have fumbled their coverage, diverting attention from the attackers to focus on Trump’s rhetoric and past actions.

This skewed narrative not only muddles the seriousness of these attacks but also risks normalizing political violence.

In the latest incident, Ryan Wesley Routh was caught lurking near Trump’s golf course in Florida, hiding in the shrubs, lying in wait for 12 hours. The situation raised critical concerns about security measures after an earlier assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally. Rather than examining the seriousness of the threat, some media outlets have used these incidents as an opportunity to rehash Trump’s past controversies, particularly his statements about immigration and race.

For example, a New York Times piece centered around Vice President Kamala Harris’s criticism of Trump’s rhetoric toward Haitian migrants, calling it “hateful” and divisive. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton publicly urged journalists to consistently frame Trump as a danger to the country—even as news of the assassination attempt broke. This shift in focus sends a mixed message, suggesting that Trump’s words somehow make him partially responsible for the violence against him.

The implications of this are disturbing. Political violence should be condemned universally, no matter who the target is. Yet, when media narratives repeatedly point to Trump’s rhetoric in the aftermath of assassination attempts, it subtly implies that these attacks could be understandable, if not justified. It creates a dangerous climate where violence against public figures is tacitly excused if their views are unpopular.

We’ve seen this kind of biased focus before. After the Pennsylvania rally attempt perpetrated by Thomas Matthew Crooks, instead of uniting in clear condemnation, the conversation again steered toward whether Trump’s combative style was “provoking” violence. This is not just an issue of left or right politics; it’s a question of principle. As Americans, we should stand united against any attempt to harm a public official, regardless of their political affiliation.

A Call for Christian Compassion

In moments like these, the words of Jesus in Luke 6:32-36 remind us of a deeper calling. The passage teaches that loving only those we find agreeable or worthy of compassion is no great feat—anyone can do that. But as followers of Christ, we are called to a higher standard: to love and show compassion even to those who seem offensive, divisive, or hard to understand. This is where true faith shines through.

The handling of Trump’s assassination attempts by some media outlets—and the number of Christians whose responses seem cold, uncaring, or vindictive—raises an important question: Where is our love? Have we, as believers, allowed ourselves to be so influenced by biased media narratives that we’ve lost sight of our calling to show grace and compassion to all, even those we disagree with?

Jesus didn’t call us to love only when it’s easy. If anything, we are called to show Christ-like love when it’s most difficult. If the media or public sentiment labels someone as controversial or divisive, does that justify the hardening of our hearts? Certainly not. Our ability to love those whom a large sector of society deems unlovable is a reflection of our knowledge of Christ. In the face of these assassination attempts, we should be asking ourselves: Is this how Jesus would handle this situation?

The Danger of Blame-Shifting

The blame-shifting is problematic on both sides.

Scrutinizing Trump’s words is entirely legitimate—every public figure’s rhetoric should be examined. However, such critiques should not blur the lines between criticism and condoning violence. As The Hill rightfully points out, the larger issue here is the normalization of political violence through muddled media narratives. By failing to distinguish between Trump’s divisive statements and attempts on his life, the media inadvertently contributes to a climate of moral ambiguity where extreme actions seem more palatable.

One cannot ignore that we live in an age where public figures, especially those who are controversial, face increasing threats. As women of faith, we understand the power of words and the importance of accountability. But we also know that accountability should never extend to condoning or softening the consequences of violence. That is not justice; it is a distortion of what it means to stand for what is right.

At times like these, we need clarity and strong moral leadership in our media. Let us be clear: assassination attempts are a stain on our democracy and our national values. The media's responsibility is to report these events with the gravity they deserve, focusing on the perpetrators and the threat they represent to all of us. Any distraction from that only weakens the resolve to stand against such acts.

Balancing Accountability and Compassion

As Christians, our response to these events must be rooted in both accountability and compassion. While Trump's rhetoric has undoubtedly fueled division, there is no justification for violence against him—or any political leader. The media should stand firm in this conviction, refusing to blur the lines between legitimate criticism and veiled tolerance of political violence. More importantly, we as believers must examine our hearts and ask: Are we showing Christ-like love even to those we may not understand or agree with?

As Luke 6 reminds us, loving everyone—especially those we find hard to love— is where our faith becomes real. Anything less is a compromise of our Christian witness.