Fired After Violent Rhetoric: Chicago College Cuts Ties with Far-Left Activist
Moises Bernal Puentes, a prominent figure in the radical “No Kings” movement, was terminated from his position at Wilbur Wright College after making alarming calls for violence against federal immigration officers. The incident unfolded at a protest on October 18 and quickly garnered federal attention, leading to decisive action from the Chicago City Colleges system.
A statement released on social media declared, “It’s official: ‘No Kings’ leftist Moises Bernal who called on leftists to ‘grab a gun’ and shoot ICE agents has been fired.” This declaration resonated widely, underscoring rising fears regarding the radicalization visible in today’s public forums and among those in educational roles.
As the Adult Education Manager, Bernal’s remarks put him in hot water. In video footage from the protest, he urged demonstrators, saying:
“You gotta grab a gun. We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system. These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.”
The remarks prompted a swift response from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A spokesperson emphasized the seriousness of threats against federal law enforcement: “Any suggestion or threat of violence against federal law enforcement personnel is taken seriously.” An investigation regarding potential incitement to violence was launched immediately.
Bernal’s comments arose amidst a larger demonstration organized by the “No Kings” campaign, a gathering that included radical groups opposed to U.S. immigration enforcement and critical of previous administration policies. Veronica Resa, a spokesperson for Chicago City Colleges, confirmed Bernal’s dismissal, highlighting a strict zero-tolerance stance against inciting violence on campuses. “Our institutions serve students from every background under the shared promise of safety, dignity, and respect,” she remarked. “There is no room for hate or calls for violence on our campuses.”
Bernal’s termination occurred within just four days of the incident, illustrating the college’s rapid response to potential threats. This incident has sparked broader discussions about the nature of extremist rhetoric within educational institutions and the fine line between political expression and legality. Bernal’s exhortations crossed into dangerous territory, invoking illegal calls for violence against a federal agency.
Federal law explicitly criminalizes threats against officers of the federal government. Encouragement of lethal violence, especially in such a public setting, carries significant legal implications. Specific provisions like 18 U.S.C. § 111 and 18 U.S.C. § 2385 outline serious repercussions for such behavior, and while charges have not yet been filed against Bernal, the situation remains under close scrutiny by authorities.
This was not Bernal’s first encounter with law enforcement; his history includes a 2017 incident where he received probation for outbursts during a courtroom protest. Each of these incidents paints a picture of a man unbound by conventional conduct, eager to challenge legal boundaries.
The protest also featured Lucy Martinez, an elementary school teacher whose actions stirred their own controversy. Martinez was recorded mimicking a gun gesture to her neck in reference to a recent assassination attempt on a conservative commentator. While her actions prompted backlash, she has not faced the same immediate consequence of termination as Bernal. Chicago Public Schools have launched an internal review, signaling their concern over her behavior yet acknowledging it did not reach the level of incitement present in Bernal’s remarks.
This episode highlights the growing trend of politically charged protests becoming venues for extreme tests of lawful speech. Participants of such protests may push boundaries, but Bernal’s words clearly crossed the line—not just politically but also legally and professionally.
Bernal’s protest actions were part of a surge of opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, aligning with the broader “No Kings” agenda. While advocacy against policy is expected in democratic discourse, calls for violence shift responsibilities and standards dramatically, placing public servants in a precarious position regarding their professional conduct.
The consequences faced by Bernal reflect a national concern: should public employees advocating for violent rhetoric be held accountable? As societal calls for accountability among public figures grow, Bernal’s rapid dismissal serves as a pointed example of how swiftly institutional response can occur in light of threats against safety and civility.
The DHS’s ongoing investigation could yet lead to legal repercussions for Bernal, reaffirming a stance against any threats posed to federal officers. The clarity of the agency’s message leaves no room for ambiguity: threats of violence—regardless of their political context—will have consequences.
As Resa highlighted, “Any language or behavior that puts our community at risk is unacceptable.” Bernal’s actions not only jeopardized his position but raised alarms about the stability and trustworthiness that public institutions, especially educational ones, must maintain.
Furthermore, Bernal’s swift removal from his role, alongside the deletion of his social media accounts post-protest, highlights the intense backlash that comes from violating fundamental principles of safety and respect within professional settings. As discussions continue over the balance between activism, free speech, and public duty, the tension remains palpable.
This incident serves as a stark reminder: advocating violence against any group leads directly to professional repercussions. As one official stated plainly: “You advocate murder, you lose your job. It’s not complicated.”
"*" indicates required fields
