Swatting Is a Political Problem

In a year with so much political and legal tension, law enforcement is seeing a disturbing trend: targeting public officials with swatting, or false emergency calls intended to draw a heavily armed police response. This conduct isn’t a harmless prank; it’s a symptom of a deeper disorder in American politics. Recent incidents involving officials who have taken stands seen as hostile to Donald Trump and bomb threats in multiple state capitols are signs of a troubling escalation in political violence.

These hoaxes pose real dangers. Sending armed police officers to someone’s home on the ruse that violence is occurring there risks tragic outcomes, including fatalities, as we saw in Kansas in 2017, when swatting led to a police officer shooting an unarmed man. In addition, swatting diverts law enforcement resources from real emergencies. But more insidiously, these tactics are tools of intimidation, designed to silence voices in the political process.

The frequency and visibility of these incidents suggest that swatting and political violence require prosecutors to prioritize their efforts to stop it. Recent targets of swatting include Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal election interference case and whom Mr. Trump has accused of election interference; the special counsel Jack Smith, whom Mr. Trump has called “deranged” and a “thug”; and Gabriel Sterling, a Republican election official in Georgia who rejected Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Justice Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over Mr. Trump’s New York civil fraud trial, received a bomb threat at his home on the day of closing arguments. Maine’s secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, became a victim of swatting shortly after she removed Mr. Trump from the presidential ballot in her state under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. She rightly sees these acts as attempts to chill efforts to enforce the law, calling the incident at her home “designed to scare not only me but also others into silence, to send a message.”

Public officials are human. Threats and the specter of violence can get into their heads. The possibility that a loved one might be unnerved, injured or worse as a result of one’s official duties isn’t easily shrugged off for most of us. The husband of Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer, retired from his dental practice about eight years earlier than planned because of threats he received at his office. The risks can go beyond words. A federal judge in New Jersey suffered the loss of her 20-year-old son in 2020 when a gunman, apparently dressed as a delivery driver, came to her home looking for her and killed her son instead. We cannot forget that threats can escalate into violence. Fear of placing family members in harm’s way can make public officials shrink from making unpopular decisions and can even cause some good people to avoid serving altogether.

Of course, this phenomenon isn’t entirely new. At the dawn of the American Revolution, some colonists harassed tax collectors and published the names of those who refused to boycott British goods. And we have experienced bomb threats for decades, learning to live with the disruptions caused by evacuations that result when a threat is phoned in or posted online.

But the recent uptick in swatting can be attributed, at least in part, to the dangerous drumbeat of disinformation and dehumanization, a tactic long employed by authoritarians. Political extremists engage in what is known as the either-or fallacy. By framing issues as binary conflicts and demonizing opponents, they create a climate in which violence becomes normalized. Recent statements by Mr. Trump exemplify this strategy. He uses Truth Social posts to make unfounded accusations and express disdain for rivals. These posts do more than spread disinformation. They foster an environment in which violence against perceived enemies becomes not just conceivable but justified.