Politics in the 2020s is basically a game of "choose your own reality," but few moments crystallized that more than when Donald Trump spoke about Liz Cheney during a 2024 campaign event. It was late October. The election was just days away. Suddenly, every headline in the country was screaming some variation of the same thing: Trump said Liz Cheney should be shot.
If you watched the news that night, you probably saw a clip of Trump talking about "nine barrels shooting at her." Depending on which channel you were watching, you either saw a "clear death threat" or a "metaphor about war hawks."
But what actually happened?
When you strip away the frantic tweets and the cable news shouting matches, there is a very specific transcript of what went down in Glendale, Arizona. It wasn’t a leaked recording or a private whisper. It was a live interview with Tucker Carlson, and honestly, the context changes the flavor of the comment quite a bit, even if the imagery remains incredibly violent.
What Really Happened with Trump's Liz Cheney Comments
The whole thing started when Tucker Carlson asked Trump how he felt about Liz Cheney campaigning with Kamala Harris. Trump didn't hold back. He called her "a deranged person" and a "very dumb individual." This wasn't surprising—the two have been at each other's throats since the January 6th Committee days.
Then came the line that broke the internet.
Trump was complaining about Cheney’s foreign policy record. He called her a "radical war hawk" and then said:
👉 See also: What Really Happened With the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
He followed that up by saying that people in Washington like to send 10,000 troops "right into the mouth of the enemy" while they stay safe in "nice buildings."
Basically, Trump’s defense—and the defense of his campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt—was that he was making a point about "chicken hawks." You’ve heard the term before. It’s the idea that politicians who have never seen a combat zone are the quickest to send other people's kids to die in one.
The Firing Squad Interpretation vs. The Combat Zone Metaphor
If you read the words "guns trained on her face," it’s hard not to think of a firing squad. That’s exactly how Liz Cheney took it. She responded on X (formerly Twitter) by saying this is how "dictators destroy free nations." She argued that Trump was threatening her with death for the crime of speaking against him.
Kamala Harris jumped in too. She called the rhetoric "disqualifying," arguing that anyone who uses that kind of language shouldn't be allowed near the Oval Office.
On the flip side, Trump's supporters thought the media was being intentionally dense. They argued that if you listen to the whole three-minute rant, he’s clearly talking about the reality of war. They pointed out that he mentions her having a rifle too, which implies a battle, not an execution.
✨ Don't miss: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
Why the distinction matters
- The "Firing Squad" view: Suggests a direct threat of state-sponsored violence against a political rival.
- The "War Zone" view: Suggests a crude, graphic way of saying "you wouldn't be so brave if you were the one in the trenches."
Honestly, both things can be true at the same time. You can be making a point about foreign policy while also using language that sounds like a violent threat. That’s the "Trump Style" in a nutshell—it’s ambiguous enough that fans see a metaphor and enemies see a crime.
A History of "War Hawk" Rhetoric
To understand why this blew up so fast, you have to look at the relationship between Trump and the Cheney family. It’s not just Liz; it’s her dad, Dick Cheney. Trump has spent years blaming the Cheneys for the Iraq War and what he calls "endless foreign wars."
He’s positioned himself as the "anti-war" Republican, which is a wild pivot if you remember the GOP of the early 2000s. By attacking Liz Cheney, he wasn't just attacking a critic; he was attacking the old-school Republican establishment that she represents.
During that same Arizona event, Trump didn't stop with Cheney. He went after:
- John Bolton: Called him a "real dope" and a "nut job."
- Adam Kinzinger: Labeled him a "total whack job."
- Adam Schiff: Dubbed him "watermelon head."
It was a night of high-octane insults, but the Cheney comment was the only one that suggested physical danger. That’s why the Arizona Attorney General’s office actually looked into whether the comments violated state law. They eventually decided not to pursue it, but the fact that it was even a conversation shows how thin the line had become between political theater and legal threats.
Surprising Details Most People Missed
While the "nine barrels" quote got all the play, there were a few weird details that got lost in the shuffle. For one, Trump mentioned that Cheney "always wanted to go to war with people" even when she was working with him.
🔗 Read more: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
He claimed that in meetings, she was the one constantly pushing for military intervention. Whether that's 100% accurate is up for debate, but it shows his mindset. In his head, he’s the "peace candidate" and she’s the "warmonger."
Another thing? The timing. This happened right when the Harris campaign was trying to court "Never Trump" Republicans in suburbs like those in Michigan and Pennsylvania. By using such graphic language, Trump arguably played right into Harris's hands, giving her a fresh example of "unstable" behavior to show to moderate voters who were already on the fence.
Why This Still Matters in 2026
You might wonder why we're still talking about a clip from late 2024. It’s because it set the template for how political speech is handled now. It forced us to ask: when does a metaphor become a threat?
If a politician says they want to "target" an opponent, is that a campaign strategy or a call to action? We’re still navigating that. The Liz Cheney incident wasn't just a one-off gaffe; it was a stress test for the First Amendment and the "guardrails of democracy" that Cheney herself often talks about.
Actionable Insights for the News Consumer
It is incredibly easy to get sucked into the rage-bait cycle. When you see a headline like Trump said Liz Cheney should be shot, here is how you should actually process it:
- Find the Full Clip: Never rely on a 10-second snippet on TikTok or X. Those are designed to make you mad. Watch the 2 minutes before and the 2 minutes after.
- Check the Legal Standard: In the US, for something to be a "true threat," it usually has to show a specific intent to harm a specific person in a way that a reasonable listener would find threatening. Political hyperbole often gets a pass, even if it’s gross.
- Look at the Source: Is the person sharing the news a campaign surrogate or a neutral reporter? If they’re using "loaded" adjectives like "chilling" or "heroic," they’re selling you a feeling, not just a fact.
- Separate Policy from Persona: You can hate Trump’s rhetoric while agreeing that the US has stayed in foreign wars too long. Or you can admire Liz Cheney’s stance on the Constitution while disagreeing with her voting record. Don't let the "violence" of the language stop you from seeing the underlying policy debate.
The reality is that Donald Trump didn't literally call for a firing squad to execute Liz Cheney. But he did use graphic, violent imagery to describe a political opponent facing death. In a country with a history of political violence, those distinctions are small, but they matter.
Moving forward, expect this kind of "was it a threat or a metaphor?" debate to be the default state of American politics. The best way to handle it is to stay skeptical of the headlines and look for the raw transcript every single time.