Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently sparked outrage for what many view as a reckless message aimed at President Trump. During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Whitmer sat in front of a sign that read “8645,” which is widely interpreted as a coded call to harm the former president. The indication of “86,” slang for “kill,” alongside “45” for Trump as the 45th president, alarmed viewers and critics alike.
This incident occurred during a time when Trump was making his return to the campaign trail in Michigan, following a recent shooting incident. As Trump prepared for his rally with candidate JD Vance, security measures were heightened in response to Whitmer’s actions. The controversial background sign has compounded tensions surrounding the already charged political landscape. Whitmer’s previous statements about promoting unity and rejecting hatred appear glaringly contradictory to her apparent endorsement of violent rhetoric.
In June 2020, Whitmer criticized Trump for allegedly inciting division through his comments regarding the violent protests inspired by the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. She called for empathy and collaboration, steering the narrative toward healing a wounded nation. “This is one of the most challenging periods in our nation’s history,” she remarked, asserting that Americans should unite against the true enemy, which she identified as racial injustice.
Her latest comments juxtaposed against her previous denunciations of Trump raise questions about her sincerity. Tudor Dixon, a Republican candidate for governor, weighed in, suggesting Whitmer’s behavior constitutes a dangerous precedent. In a scathing post, she declared, “Perhaps she should sit this one out since she very clearly called for it to happen,” addressing the troubling implications of Whitmer’s sign.
The fallout continued with Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Whitmer’s presumed successor, allegedly embracing a similar message. Benson’s office reportedly approved a personalized license plate that reads “86 TRMP,” further echoing the disturbing sentiment tied to Whitmer’s sign. Despite the situation’s contentiousness, the Secretary of State’s office has failed to revoke the plate or acknowledge its inflammatory nature.
Benson’s role as Secretary of State has previously been marked by accusations of victimhood regarding threats directed at her. She claimed armed protesters intimidated her outside her home after the 2020 election. However, reports have surfaced contradicting her assertions, with the Detroit Police Department stating that no weapons were present among those gathered peacefully outside her residence. This discrepancy raises significant doubts about Benson’s trustworthiness.
In her own words, Benson described the protesters as targeting her personally, and she labeled their actions as a means to “undermine and silence the will and voices of every voter.” Yet now, she seems to be allowing state resources to promote what many perceive as calls to violence against Trump.
Public officials have a duty to represent their constituents responsibly. The approval of plates like “86 TRMP” not only violates state vehicle code, which prohibits issuing messages that advocate violence, but also reflects poorly on the integrity of Benson’s office. Could this breach lead to liability for a public official who misuses their power?
Michigan’s laws regarding personalized license plates explicitly ban configurations that convey messages of hate or violence. Yet the Secretary of State’s office, under Benson’s purview, has seemingly flouted these rules, raising serious concerns about accountability and governance.
As the situation unfolds, the contrast between past denunciations of violence and current inaction on the part of Democratic leaders creates a troubling narrative. How can the public trust officials who claim to champion unity while simultaneously permitting violent rhetoric to proliferate? The citizens of Michigan deserve clarity and integrity from their leaders.
This series of events continues to polarize an already divided political environment. With each passing moment, the call for responsible leadership grows louder. In the end, the question remains: how will these leaders reconcile their words and actions amid rising tensions and fears of violence in American politics?
"*" indicates required fields
