Nancy Mace, who challenged a lawmaker to ‘take it outside,' says that political violence is getting out of control
Nancy Mace, who once challenged another congresswoman to take their disagreement "outside', denounced political violence and rhetoric after being targeted by a Pennsylvania man who threatened Donald Trump.
Shawn Monper, of Butler, Pennsylvania, has been charged with allegedly making threats against Trump and Mace, according to Fox News, citing a law enforcement source.
The man allegedly wrote about wanting to shoot Mace in a YouTube comment.
"If I ever see her unprotected in public I would [love] to be the one to put a bullet in her skull," the man allegedly wrote. "What a disgusting [piece] of trash."
Monper also allegedly made threats against Trump, saying he would 'assassinate' the president himself and calling for those opposed to the MAGA movement to just 'start killing people.'
"Nah, we just need to start killing people, Trump, Elon [Musk], all the heads of agencies Trump appointed, and anyone who stands in the way,' he allegedly wrote on YouTube. 'Remember, we are the majority, MAGA is a minority of the country, and by the time its time to make the move, they will be weakened, many will be crushed by these policies, and they will want revenge too. American Revolution 2.0."
According to Fox News Digital, Mace appears to be the only member of Congress who received a threat.
Monper allegedly said he'd bought guns and ammunition since Trump took office, and allegedly made threats against members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and against Tesla CEO and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, according to law enforcement.
Mace confirmed the threats on Monday night and issued a statement denouncing political violence.
"If you think attempting to assassinate elected officials makes you a hero, you're not an activist. You're a terrorist. And you should never see the light of day again," she said. "This political violence is getting out of control, and silence is no longer an option. I won't be intimidated. I won't be silenced. We have a duty to call this evil out—loudly and publicly."
Mace herself was involved in a high-profile incident earlier this year when she challenged a political opponent to fight with her during a disagreement on Capitol Hill.
In January, Mace was arguing with Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, during which she asked the representative if she wanted to "take it outside" — generally understood to be a challenge to brawl.
Mace and Crockett were arguing about Republicans' attacks on trans rights before the incident took a turn for the threatening, according to NBC News.
'I can see that somebody's campaign coffers really are struggling right now. So [Mace] is gonna keep saying 'trans, trans, trans, trans' so that people will feel threatened, and child, listen —' Crockett said, before Mace interjected.
'I am no child, do not call me a child, I am no child,' Mace shot back. 'If you want to take it outside, we can do that."
Representative Maxwell Frost, a Democrat from Florida, defended Crockett and said Mace was trying to incite violence against her.
Republican Congressman James Comer, who chairs the subcommittee on civil rights, facilitated a discussion and decided that Mace's words did not constitute a call to violence, offering the explanation that perhaps Mace was simply asking Crockett to "have a cup of coffee or perhaps a beer."
Mace herself, despite referencing the incident and saying that she "went off" on the Congresswoman, insisted she was not calling on Crockett to fight her.
'Let me be clear: I wanted to take the conversation off the floor to have a more constructive conversation, not to fight. At no point was there any intention of causing harm to anyone,' she wrote in a post on X.
Crockett maintained that she had been threatened and called Mace an "attention seeking loser."
'Last I checked, threatening members in a committee room doesn't exactly reduce the cost of eggs,' she wrote at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Business Insider
7 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Travel ban: 10 exceptions that allow citizens from restricted countries to enter the U.S.
Some select groups of people from the 12 countries affected by President Trump's travel ban may still be allowed entry into the United States. President Trump's travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries, imposing restrictions due to national security concerns. Certain exceptions allow entry based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications. Critics argue the travel restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and strain international relations. Despite the travel ban in place, there are specific exceptions that allow citizens from the affected or restricted countries to enter the United States. These exceptions are typically based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications and are designed to accommodate urgent or essential travel needs that align with U.S. policy considerations. The travel ban which takes effect from today, bars nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Additionally, nationals from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, face partial travel restrictions. The U.S. government justifies these measures on national security grounds, citing concerns over terrorism, insufficient passport controls, and high visa overstay rates in the affected countries. However, exceptions exist that allow certain individuals from these nations to enter the U.S. These exemptions reflect the government's recognition of humanitarian, diplomatic, and strategic factors that require flexibility beyond the broad restrictions. Here are 10 exceptions to Trump's travel restrictions According to the BBC, the travel restrictions do not apply to specific categories of individuals, as detailed in the list below. "Lawful permanent" US residents Their immediate family members who hold immigrant visas US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas Adoptions Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries Afghan nationals holding Special Immigrant Visas Holders of "immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran" Foreign nationals travelling with certain non-immigrant visas Athletes, their teams (including coaches and supporting staff), and their immediate family when travelling for major sporting events, such as the men's football World Cup in 2026 and the Summer 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles In addition, the US Secretary of State may grant exemptions to individuals on a "case-by-case" basis, if "the individual would serve a United States national interest". Trump's travel restrictions criticized President Trump's travel restrictions have sparked widespread criticism both internationally and domestically. Numerous countries and organizations have voiced dissent, arguing that the ban unfairly targets certain nations and exacerbates existing geopolitical tensions. The African Union was among the first to publicly condemn the policy, urging the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the affected countries rather than impose broad restrictions. The group emphasized that cooperation and diplomatic engagement would better address security concerns without harming innocent civilians. In a notable response, the President of Mali took retaliatory measures by limiting visa issuance to U.S. citizens hoping to travel to Mali.
Axios
8 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality
The wildest, scariest, indisputable truth about AI's large language models is that the companies building them don't know exactly why or how they work. Sit with that for a moment. The most powerful companies, racing to build the most powerful superhuman intelligence capabilities — ones they readily admit occasionally go rogue to make things up, or even threaten their users — don't know why their machines do what they do. Why it matters: With the companies pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into willing superhuman intelligence into a quick existence, and Washington doing nothing to slow or police them, it seems worth dissecting this Great Unknown. None of the AI companies dispute this. They marvel at the mystery — and muse about it publicly. They're working feverishly to better understand it. They argue you don't need to fully understand a technology to tame or trust it. Two years ago, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg wrote a story, "AI's scariest mystery," saying it's common knowledge among AI developers that they can't always explain or predict their systems' behavior. And that's more true than ever. Yet there's no sign that the government or companies or general public will demand any deeper understanding — or scrutiny — of building a technology with capabilities beyond human understanding. They're convinced the race to beat China to the most advanced LLMs warrants the risk of the Great Unknown. The House, despite knowing so little about AI, tucked language into President Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" that would prohibit states and localities from any AI regulations for 10 years. The Senate is considering limitations on the provision. Neither the AI companies nor Congress understands the power of AI a year from now, much less a decade from now. The big picture: Our purpose with this column isn't to be alarmist or " doomers." It's to clinically explain why the inner workings of superhuman intelligence models are a black box, even to the technology's creators. We'll also show, in their own words, how CEOs and founders of the largest AI companies all agree it's a black box. Let's start with a basic overview of how LLMs work, to better explain the Great Unknown: LLMs — including Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — aren't traditional software systems following clear, human-written instructions, like Microsoft Word. In the case of Word, it does precisely what it's engineered to do. Instead, LLMs are massive neural networks — like a brain — that ingest massive amounts of information (much of the internet) to learn to generate answers. The engineers know what they're setting in motion, and what data sources they draw on. But the LLM's size — the sheer inhuman number of variables in each choice of "best next word" it makes — means even the experts can't explain exactly why it chooses to say anything in particular. We asked ChatGPT to explain this (and a human at OpenAI confirmed its accuracy): "We can observe what an LLM outputs, but the process by which it decides on a response is largely opaque. As OpenAI's researchers bluntly put it, 'we have not yet developed human-understandable explanations for why the model generates particular outputs.'" "In fact," ChatGPT continued, "OpenAI admitted that when they tweaked their model architecture in GPT-4, 'more research is needed' to understand why certain versions started hallucinating more than earlier versions — a surprising, unintended behavior even its creators couldn't fully diagnose." Anthropic — which just released Claude 4, the latest model of its LLM, with great fanfare — admitted it was unsure why Claude, when given access to fictional emails during safety testing, threatened to blackmail an engineer over a supposed extramarital affair. This was part of responsible safety testing — but Anthropic can't fully explain the irresponsible action. Again, sit with that: The company doesn't know why its machine went rogue and malicious. And, in truth, the creators don't really know how smart or independent the LLMs could grow. Anthropic even said Claude 4 is powerful enough to pose a greater risk of being used to develop nuclear or chemical weapons. OpenAI's Sam Altman and others toss around the tame word of " interpretability" to describe the challenge. "We certainly have not solved interpretability," Altman told a summit in Geneva last year. What Altman and others mean is they can't interpret the why: Why are LLMs doing what they're doing? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in an essay in April called "The Urgency of Interpretability," warned: "People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology." Amodei called this a serious risk to humanity — yet his company keeps boasting of more powerful models nearing superhuman capabilities. Anthropic has been studying the interpretability issue for years, and Amodei has been vocal about warning it's important to solve. In a statement for this story, Anthropic said: "Understanding how AI works is an urgent issue to solve. It's core to deploying safe AI models and unlocking [AI's] full potential in accelerating scientific discovery and technological development. We have a dedicated research team focused on solving this issue, and they've made significant strides in moving the industry's understanding of the inner workings of AI forward. It's crucial we understand how AI works before it radically transforms our global economy and everyday lives." (Read a paper Anthropic published last year, "Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.") Elon Musk has warned for years that AI presents a civilizational risk. In other words, he literally thinks it could destroy humanity, and has said as much. Yet Musk is pouring billions into his own LLM called Grok. "I think AI is a significant existential threat," Musk said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last fall. There's a 10%-20% chance "that it goes bad." Reality check: Apple published a paper last week, "The Illusion of Thinking," concluding that even the most advanced AI reasoning models don't really "think," and can fail when stress-tested. The study found that state-of-the-art models (OpenAI's o3-min, DeepSeek R1 and Anthropic's Claude-3.7-Sonnet) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero "beyond certain complexities." But a new report by AI researchers, including former OpenAI employees, called " AI 2027," explains how the Great Unknown could, in theory, turn catastrophic in less than two years. The report is long and often too technical for casual readers to fully grasp. It's wholly speculative, though built on current data about how fast the models are improving. It's being widely read inside the AI companies. It captures the belief — or fear — that LLMs could one day think for themselves and start to act on their own. Our purpose isn't to alarm or sound doomy. Rather, you should know what the people building these models talk about incessantly. You can dismiss it as hype or hysteria. But researchers at all these companies worry LLMs, because we don't fully understand them, could outsmart their human creators and go rogue. In the AI 2027 report, the authors warn that competition with China will push LLMs potentially beyond human control, because no one will want to slow progress even if they see signs of acute danger. The safe-landing theory: Google's Sundar Pichai — and really all of the big AI company CEOs — argue that humans will learn to better understand how these machines work and find clever, if yet unknown ways, to control them and " improve lives." The companies all have big research and safety teams, and a huge incentive to tame the technologies if they want to ever realize their full value.
