Written by Joshua Bennett.

On a recent MSNBC broadcast, veteran commentator Chris Matthews ignited a firestorm by urging Democrats to “stand up” and “take a shot” at President Donald Trump—words that teeter perilously close to inciting violence. Delivered amid escalating partisan tensions, this rhetoric arrives as Trump’s administration presses forward with its agenda, unraveling policies long cherished by liberals. For viewers and voters alike, Matthews’ remarks raise a pressing concern: at what point does heated discourse cross into dangerous territory?

Matthews’ Critique of Trump’s Aggressive Tactics

Matthews framed his comments around Trump’s assertive second term, likening the president’s actions to a barrage from a “machine gun.” He pointed specifically to Trump’s pledge to pardon those involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, a move Matthews sees as a bold signal of defiance. “He said, first of all, the people that tried to kill Congress by attacking the US Congress on January 6th, I’m going to pardon them all to let you know where I stand,” Matthews declared, portraying Trump as an unrelenting force overwhelming his opponents.

This metaphor of a “firing squad” underscores Matthews’ view of Trump as a formidable adversary, unleashing a salvo of policy shifts that Democrats struggle to counter. He argued that the sheer volume of Trump’s actions—pardons, regulatory rollbacks, and international posturing—demands a unified response, one he believes the party has yet to muster. For the average American, this might evoke images of a government in flux, where rapid changes leave little room for opposition to regroup.

A Call for Democratic Resistance

Expressing frustration, Matthews challenged prominent Democrats to rise to the occasion. “It’s very hard to take on a firing squad,” he said. “A lot of bullets coming your way, all aiming at you, and you’ve got to shoot back in all directions at the same time.” He singled out Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, acknowledging their leadership but questioning their capacity to match Trump’s pace. Matthews suggested that no single figure has emerged to effectively challenge the president’s onslaught.

He then turned his focus to Senator Cory Booker, a lawmaker he admires, urging him to take action. “Who’s going to stand up? Who’s going to take a shot back at this guy? Why isn’t Cory Booker doing this? He’s got all the time in the world,” Matthews pressed. “I am a big Cory Booker fan. Do it, Cory. Do it.” This direct appeal positions Booker as a potential standard-bearer, though Matthews offered no specifics on what “taking a shot” entails—leaving the phrase open to interpretation.

For a small business owner in New Jersey, Booker’s home state, this might resonate as a call for local leadership to confront national chaos. Yet, the ambiguity of Matthews’ language—combative and suggestive—casts a shadow over his intent, amplifying the risk of misconstruction in an already volatile climate.

The Backdrop of Violence and Media Influence

Matthews’ remarks arrive against a grim backdrop: Trump survived at least two assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign, incidents many attribute to overheated media narratives. Critics contend that outlets like MSNBC, through relentless criticism and alarmist framing, have fueled a climate ripe for radicalization. Matthews’ own words—“take a shot”—echo this pattern, prompting accusations that such rhetoric could inspire unstable individuals to act, much as it may have in the past.

Consider a truck driver in Pennsylvania, where one attempt occurred, who recalls the chaos of that day—bullets fired near a rally, spurred by a narrative of Trump as an existential threat. Analysts have long warned that portraying political figures as enemies rather than opponents can tip the scales from debate to violence. Matthews’ latest outburst, intentional or not, risks adding fuel to this fire, especially as Trump’s policies—like dismantling federal agencies—deepen liberal outrage.

Meanwhile, MSNBC’s broader attacks align with a mainstream media trend of escalating anti-Trump sentiment. Matthews himself accused Trump of eroding American rights and acting as a “big boss” domestically and abroad, claims that amplify the network’s narrative. Yet, his plea for a Democratic counteroffensive reveals a paradox: he decries Trump’s dominance while seemingly advocating a mirrored aggression, blurring the line between resistance and recklessness.

Our Take

Chris Matthews’ urging of Democrats to “take a shot” at Trump is a troubling escalation in an already polarized landscape. His frustration with the party’s inability to counter Trump’s aggressive second term is palpable, and his call for figures like Cory Booker to lead reflects a genuine desire for opposition. However, the choice of words—laden with violent undertones—is inexcusable in a nation still reeling from assassination attempts. Matthews, a seasoned journalist, should know the weight his platform carries; this misstep risks normalizing dangerous rhetoric at a time when civility is scarce.

Moreover, the broader context matters. Trump’s survival of real gunfire underscores the stakes—media voices like Matthews wield influence that can either calm or inflame. His critique of Trump’s “firing squad” tactics rings hollow when paired with a plea to “shoot back,” suggesting a cycle of escalation rather than a solution. Democrats may indeed need a robust response to Trump’s agenda, but Matthews’ approach—vague yet provocative—offers little clarity and much peril. The line between metaphor and menace has blurred, and that’s a risk neither party, nor the public, can afford.

NEW: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews fires up the incendiary Trump rhetoric:

“Who is going to stand up? Who is going to take a shot back at this guy?”

Here legacy media goes again:

“Trump came in this time, the second time with a machine gun and he fired so many shots. He said, first… pic.twitter.com/XA5ndEI9UM

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 18, 2025