Trump's Speech to Law Enforcement: For Brutality? Or Not? Did He Mean What He Said?

President Donald Trump spoke to a group of law enforcement officials on July 28. Although Trump rambled a bit – which seems to happen when he doesn't have a good prepared text – his main theme was to criticize the criminal organization MS-13. Most of the speech reviewed standard talking points familiar from the conservative movement or Trump's previous public speeches: support the police, Make America Great Again, restrict immigration because immigrants are often criminals. He threw a criticism of Obamacare into the speech. No big surprises there. But did he give a dog whistle to police violence?

Here's what caused controversy in one passage, Trump appeared to endorse police brutality:

Now, we're getting them out anyway, but we'd like to get them out a lot faster.  And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon -- you just see them thrown in, rough -- I said, please don’t be too nice.  (Laughter.)  Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over?  Like, don’t hit their head and they've just killed somebody -- don't hit their head.  I said, you can take the hand away, okay?  (Laughter and applause.)

Donald Trump, WH photo

"Please don't be too nice." "You can take the hand away, okay?" Of course, we've all seen similar incidents on fictional TV shows, have we not? Trump seemed to reject using minimal force and treating everybody, including criminal suspects, with compassion. Judging from the audience's reaction, at least some of the law enforcement officials found that amusing.


The International Association of Police Chiefs promptly published a blog post detailing the humane use of force in law-enforcement situations. This sounded like a gentle rebuke of Trump's comments. Of course, most police departments want to establish good community relationships, which are not encouraged when brutality is practiced – and then publicized by the President of the United States. The Breitbart website predictably defended Trump's speech, although their article didn't mention the business about not being too nice or taking the hand away. The conservative Cato Institute objected to Trump's speech. Although traditional media sources expressed outrage, Trump appealed to his base.

At the same time, Trump's comments were just ambiguous enough to be deniable. He didn't say, "Beat up your suspects." What made his rhetorical tactic work? First, Trump spent quite a bit of time talking about MS-13's victims. He talked about the gang's brutality and viciousness. He gave many examples of people MS-13 members had tortured and murdered. Why, he implied, do people like this deserve compassion? Of course, MS-13 is truly an unpleasant bunch, so Trump had plenty of material to work with. Trump praised MS-13's victims, condemned the criminals, and tied his entire discussion back to the need for a stricter immigration policy.

So, Trump was just clear enough to get the message across. He seemed to advocate police violence, which was, he implied, justified by the criminal's viciousness. If the criminals are really nasty, which MS-13 obviously is, why do they deserve compassion? All things considered, a classic set of rhetorical techniques.

At the same time, with my own background in debating, I much prefer speakers who say what they want people to believe outright and explicitly, and I get very frustrated when speakers use dog-whistle arguments to evade responsibility for their beliefs. Real tough guys' rhetoric, let us remember, starts with: say what you mean, and mean what you say. Not "hint at something bad and deny it later."


Update: various police chiefs condemn President Trump's remarks. 

Update 8/1/2017: Trump says he was just joking. See my post above: Trump said something that was outrageous but deniable.