Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Opinion

Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox speaks at a press conference flanked by FBI director Kash Patel following the fatal shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University on September 12, 2025 in Orem, Utah.

(Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)

In the hours following the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, Governor Spencer Cox stood before the press and offered a prayer. But it wasn’t for the victim’s family, or for a nation reeling from yet another act of political violence. It was a prayer that the perpetrator would be someone from “another state” or “another country.” In his own words: “For 33 hours, I was praying that if this had to happen here, that it wouldn't be one of us — that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country… Sadly, that prayer was not answered the way I hoped for.”

Governor Cox was hoping the killer would be an outsider. Preferably a foreigner. That’s not just a rhetorical misstep—it’s a dangerous invocation of the kind of scapegoating that has long fueled xenophobic policy and public distrust.


This kind of deflection is not new. It echoes the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, who just last year claimed Vice President Kamala Harris had “imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world … from prisons and jails and insane asylums and mental institutions.” These words weren’t just inflammatory—they were designed to shift blame away from domestic failures and toward imagined foreign threats.

Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence

U.S. President Donald walks toward reporters while departing the White House on September 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)


Governor Cox’s remarks, whether intentional or not, reinforce a narrative that violence is imported, not homegrown. That’s a lie. And it’s a lie that has consequences.

The suspect, Tyler Robinson, is a resident of Utah. His arrest should have prompted a sober reflection on the conditions that allow radicalization to flourish within our own communities. Instead, Cox’s remarks implied that violence is somehow more palatable—less shameful—if committed by someone who doesn’t “belong.”

This framing is not only morally hollow, it’s statistically baseless. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, commit crimes at significantly lower rates than native-born citizens. A 2024 study from the National Institute of Justice found that undocumented immigrants in Texas were arrested at less than half the rate of U.S.-born citizens for violent and drug crimes, and at a quarter the rate for property crimes. The Migration Policy Institute reports that immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. The facts are not ambiguous: immigrants are not the threat.

What is a threat, however, is the persistent political impulse to deflect blame outward—to cast suspicion on the “other” rather than confront the rot within.

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham framed the moment with chilling clarity: "Political violence erupts in America when there is an existential question—who is an American? Who deserves to be included in ‘We the people,’ or ‘All men being created equal’?” he said. “When that is in tension, when we don’t have common agreement about that, then, if you look at it historically, violence erupts." These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are the fault lines of a democracy under siege.

Political violence in America is not a foreign contagion. It is domestic, it is rising, and it is often fueled by rhetoric that dehumanizes, divides, and deflects. The bullets that killed Charlie Kirk were fired by someone born and raised in Utah. That fact should not be a source of shame—it should be a call to accountability.

Governor Cox later said, “We can return violence with fire and violence. We can return hate with hate… but at some point we have to find an off-ramp.” He’s right. But that off-ramp begins with truth. And the truth is: it was one of us. It often is.

Until our leaders stop praying for convenient villains and start confronting uncomfortable realities, the road ahead will only grow darker.

Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion

"Who is an American? Who deserves to be included in ‘We the people" - Jon Meacham AI generated illustration

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network. Balta is the only person to serve twice as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).


Read More

A Sudden Vacuum: Unpacking Lindsey Graham’s Legacy and Implications for the GOP’s Senate Agenda

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the FY2027 budget request in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 12, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A Sudden Vacuum: Unpacking Lindsey Graham’s Legacy and Implications for the GOP’s Senate Agenda

On July 11, 2026, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham unexpectedly passed away at age 71. The likely cause of death was a tear in the main vessel that carries blood out of the heart, otherwise known as aortic dissection. According to a medical examiner’s preliminary report, the aortic dissection itself was due to a “brief and sudden illness” known as arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which hardened Graham’s arteries.

Graham’s death prompted widespread, bipartisan tributes from across the political spectrum. President Trump ordered all flags to be flown at half-mast in the senator’s honor, later exclaiming that “Lindsey will be greatly missed!!!” on social media. On the global stage, key international allies mourned the loss of a fierce advocate for overseas alliances, with tributes coming from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman struggling to pull blue donkey with rope

How can the Democratic Party regain public trust? Ronald Hirsch argues for a renewed mission centered on equality, opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and American democracy.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

Can the Democratic Party Still Lead?

During the 20th century and for the first part of the 21st, the Democratic Party certainly led the nation in advancing the cause of equality and the ability of people to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness. At the same time, they led the nation by increasing its military might and advancing its power around the world to protect the human rights of others.

The American worker would likely still be toiling for low wages in industrial hell-holes were it not for the laws that Democratic-led Congresses passed to increase the rights of workers vis-a-vis employers and the rights of unions. Black individuals and other people of color would still be burdened by widespread discrimination—official and otherwise—were it not for the laws that Democratic-led Congresses passed to protect their rights as American citizens. This is not to say that we have achieved equality, but we have made much progress.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Cruelty Normalizes, America’s Authoritarian Drift Deepens

Josh Hokit on April 11, 2026 in Miami, Florida.

(Photo by Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)

As Cruelty Normalizes, America’s Authoritarian Drift Deepens

It happened in a moment so small that many viewers may have missed it. After a UFC fight, athlete Josh Hokit used his victory speech not to celebrate his win but to demean former First Lady Michelle Obama, repeating a long‑running racist and sexist trope by calling her a man. Standing beside him, the President of the United States did not correct him. He did not defend a woman who served this country with dignity. He did not reject the bigotry embedded in the remark. Instead, he offered a smirk — a half‑smile of approval that traveled farther than any microphone could carry.

That smirk mattered. It was a signal. And millions recognized it for exactly what it was.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Roots We Planted: How U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped the Immigration Crisis

Supporters of Nicolas Maduro burn a United States flag during a gathering near Miraflores palace after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in the early hours on January 03, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.

(Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

The Roots We Planted: How U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped the Immigration Crisis

“Right now, we have more workers than at any time in the history of our country…And people want to come in, and in some cases, they want to take advantage of that, and that’s okay,” President Donald Trump said in a 2018 statement. “And we want them to come in, but they have to come in through merit.”

These narratives paint a vivid picture of America’s struggle with immigration: a "city on a hill" slowly becoming overrun by foreign nationals, purportedly due to open-border policies. The rhetoric suggests the United States suffers from its own success, attracting immigrants who arrive in search of "government handouts" or to evade criminal charges.

Keep ReadingShow less