On September 15, 2025, former Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine, speaking on The Morning Meeting, urged his party to abandon inflammatory rhetoric, specifically against labeling President Donald Trump as a fascist, as The Daily Caller reports. His plea for restraint came in the wake of the tragic assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. This set the stage for a broader debate on political decorum.
Just days later, on September 18, 2025, a fiery clash erupted during a House Oversight Committee hearing focused on crime in Washington, D.C. Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib sparked outrage by suggesting a “fascist takeover,” prompting a sharp rebuttal from Republican Florida Rep. Byron Donalds. The exchange quickly devolved into a heated shouting match.
During the confrontation, Tlaib was heard yelling phrases like “Free D.C.! Free D.C.!” while making pointed remarks about voting cards. Donalds, while critical of her language, refrained from personal attacks, focusing instead on the inappropriateness of her terminology. The incident highlighted deep divisions on the House floor.
On September 25, 2025, NewsNation host Chris Cuomo weighed in on his podcast, The Chris Cuomo Project, asserting that Tlaib’s behavior warranted formal repercussions. He argued that her personal attack on Donalds violated established House rules. Cuomo’s critique underscored the need for civility in legislative discourse.
Cuomo stated,
“By the way, I think Rashida Tlaib totally violated [a rule] and should be censured for the other day and how she was acting on the floor of Congress? On the floor of Congress, you’re not allowed to launch ad hominems, attacks against another member. Why? In a court of law, you’re not allowed to openly attack personally opposing counsel. Why? In sanctioned debate, you’re not allowed to levy personal insults against your debating opponent. Why?”
While Cuomo’s call for censure carries weight, isn’t it telling that progressive rhetoric often seems to skirt accountability under the guise of passion? Under President Trump’s leadership, shouldn’t we demand consistent standards of decorum, ensuring debate focuses on policy, not personal barbs?
Donalds, during the September 18 hearing, challenged Tlaib’s use of “fascist,” questioning if he resembled a figure from oppressive history. His response aimed to highlight the absurdity of her claim without stooping to insults. It was a measured pushback against divisive language.
Meanwhile, Tlaib’s repeated shouts during Donalds’ remarks only fueled the chaos on the floor. Her behavior, as Cuomo noted, crossed a line that House rules are designed to protect. Such antics distract from serious discussions about crime and governance.
Turning to broader context, President Donald Trump took decisive action in August 2025 by deploying the National Guard and other measures to curb crime in Washington, D.C. The result was a noticeable drop in violent crime compared to the prior year. This success contrasts sharply with Tlaib’s rhetoric.
Turrentine’s earlier remarks on September 15 resonate here, as he criticized his party’s tendency to overreach with terms like “fascist.” He said, “[T]he party should not call Trump Hitler, should not say he’s a fascist. One, it’s bad politics. Two, it’s just not true. Right? It is simply not the case.”
Turrentine’s candid assessment begs the question: why do some Democrats cling to hyperbole when Trump’s policies, like the D.C. crime reduction, yield tangible results? Shouldn’t conservatives press this advantage, showcasing leadership over empty name-calling that even some liberals reject?
The clash between Tlaib and Donalds isn’t just a personal spat; it reflects a deeper struggle over narrative in American politics. When crime drops under Trump’s watch, accusations of fascism ring hollow. Conservatives must keep the focus on measurable outcomes, not theatrical outbursts.
Cuomo’s push for censure aligns with a conservative appreciation for order and respect in governance. House rules exist to elevate debate, not to enable shouting matches that erode public trust. Tlaib’s actions, sadly, undermine the very institution she serves.
As President Trump continues to steer the nation toward stability, as seen in D.C.’s crime stats, incidents like this highlight why progressive overreach often backfires. Isn’t it time for accountability to trump emotional displays, ensuring Congress debates with dignity, not division?
Ultimately, this episode serves as a reminder of the stakes in maintaining civility. Let’s champion leaders who prioritize results over rhetoric, supporting President Trump’s vision for a stronger America. Tlaib’s censure, if pursued, could signal a return to much-needed decorum in our halls of power.
