Donald Trump’s rallies have always been marked by high-energy crowds and provocative statements, but at a recent event in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, things took a dark turn. What started as another typical Trump rally quickly descended into chaos when a man stormed into the press area, forcing police and sheriff’s deputies to intervene. The man was subdued with a taser, but the incident took on a far more disturbing tone due to the context in which it occurred and Trump’s reaction.

As reported by the Associated Press, the man broke through a barricade, making his way toward the media section just moments after Trump had launched into one of his routine diatribes against the press. Trump, as he often does, had just finished criticizing media outlets for unfavorable coverage and dismissed CNN’s recent interview with Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz. The man’s motivations were unclear at the time, but given Trump’s verbal attacks on the media just before the incident, many were quick to speculate that this individual was acting on behalf of Trump’s rhetoric.

The footage of the incident shows a crowd erupting as the man stormed the media area. Initially, most in attendance seemed to think he was a heckler, with some cheering the police’s swift takedown. Trump stopped speaking, clearly aware of the commotion, and his next words were chilling: “That’s okay, he’s on our side.” Trump repeated this phrase, effectively signaling to the audience that the man, who had just attempted to assault the press, was not only excused but accepted because he was a Trump supporter.

Trump’s response was deeply alarming. His casual dismissal of the situation as “okay” because the man was “on our side” raises serious concerns about his attitude toward violence, particularly violence aimed at the press. Trump’s consistent verbal assaults on the media have long fueled distrust and resentment among his supporters, but this moment highlighted the dangerous consequences of such rhetoric. By minimizing the attack and framing the individual as part of the in-group, Trump indirectly condoned the behavior.

This incident is part of a larger pattern of Trump’s attacks on the press. For years, he has referred to the media as “the enemy of the people,” a phrase that has emboldened some of his most ardent supporters to view journalists as adversaries. In interviews and public speeches, Trump has railed against media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, accusing them of being corrupt and dishonest. The hostility he stokes toward the press has, on multiple occasions, led to physical altercations and threats against reporters.

One of the most telling moments about Trump’s attitude toward the press came during a 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. In a candid exchange, Stahl recalled Trump admitting that his repeated claims of “fake news” were a strategic move. According to Stahl, Trump said that he needed to discredit the media so that when they reported negative stories about him, no one would believe them. This reveals a deliberate effort on Trump’s part to erode trust in the media, a tactic that has far-reaching implications for democracy.

Trump’s use of inflammatory language and his ongoing vilification of the press have created an environment where incidents like the one in Johnstown are not just possible, but almost predictable. The man who attempted to attack the media likely felt emboldened by Trump’s repeated assertions that the media is working against him and his supporters. Trump’s followers have internalized these messages, leading to a dangerous escalation in hostility toward journalists.

This isn’t the first time that Trump has used his platform to incite anger against the media, but it is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how his rhetoric can lead to real-world consequences. The fact that Trump immediately downplayed the severity of the incident and reassured his audience that the man was “on our side” reflects his unwillingness to take responsibility for the impact of his words. It also highlights his tendency to view any action, no matter how extreme, as justifiable if it is done in his name.

The implications of this are profound. Trump’s persistent attacks on the press have contributed to a broader decline in trust in the media. His supporters, encouraged by his rhetoric, have become increasingly hostile toward journalists, and this hostility is manifesting in physical altercations. The deterioration of respect for the press is not just a partisan issue; it is a threat to one of the fundamental pillars of democracy. A free and independent press is essential for holding power accountable, and when leaders like Trump undermine its legitimacy, they are chipping away at the very foundation of democratic governance.

As this latest incident unfolds, it’s important to reflect on how Trump’s rhetoric has brought us to this point. His speech in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, was just another example of how his words can inflame tensions and incite violence. And yet, he continues to double down on his attacks, leaving little room for reconciliation or a return to civility in political discourse. The crowd’s enthusiastic response to his dismissal of the incident as inconsequential is a troubling sign that Trump’s base is willing to accept, and even applaud, such behavior.

The dangers of this rhetoric cannot be overstated. Trump’s insistence on framing the media as an enemy has created an environment where violence against journalists is not only conceivable but increasingly likely. His refusal to condemn these actions outright is indicative of a broader disregard for the safety and integrity of the press. This latest incident should serve as a wake-up call for all who value a free press and the role it plays in preserving democracy.

In conclusion, Trump’s rally in Johnstown was a disturbing display of how his inflammatory rhetoric has real, dangerous consequences. His casual dismissal of an attempted attack on the press, coupled with his ongoing vilification of the media, sets a dangerous precedent for the future. As the political landscape becomes more polarized, it is critical that leaders take responsibility for their words and the impact they have on their supporters. Failing to do so risks further escalating tensions and undermining the democratic institutions that are essential to a functioning society.