MSNBC’s O’Leary: ICE Needs to Change Policies, Tactics or There’ll Be More Violence

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports, MSNBC Security and Intelligence Analyst Christopher O’Leary discussed the recent shooting at an ICE facility in Texas. His remarks were striking not only for their analysis of terrorism but also for the way they framed responsibility—shifting the focus from criminal accountability toward federal law enforcement tactics and policies.

O’Leary stated, “So, terrorism is theater. It’s intended to influence an audience beyond its immediate victims. It’s putting a message out. And terrorism falls into really three categories: It’s either religiously motivated, ideologically motivated, or, in this case, politically motivated. And the politically motivated ones, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens because conditions have been set that people start acting out against.”

That framing deserves a closer look. Political violence in this country has always carried deep consequences, and suggesting it arises simply because government policies “set conditions” risks blurring the line between grievances and criminal acts. America has seen politically motivated violence before, and each time, the nation has had to balance its security with its freedoms. To imply federal enforcement is to blame for violent outbursts is to overlook personal responsibility and the need for strong, consistent law and order.

O’Leary added that the conditions are “distrust in institutions — that’s been building for quite some time — attacks on institutions, the wealth gap, oppressive policies — at least this is what people perceive — and then the militarization of ICE and other federal law enforcement, the wearing of the masks, the aggressive tactics. So, the people who are starting to act out against this feel it’s their only recourse. Again, this is predictable. We see this happening throughout our history and in other places as well. So, we can tone down the rhetoric, and that’s the right message. But you also have to start looking at what policies you’ve implemented and what tactics you’re using, because, if you tone down the rhetoric, but you leave those other pieces in place, nothing’s going to change.”

Here lies the tension. By highlighting “militarization of ICE” and “oppressive policies,” O’Leary shifts attention away from the violence itself and toward the federal government’s duty to enforce immigration law. Conservatives have long argued that without firm enforcement, the border crisis spirals, endangering national security and overwhelming communities. The presence of masks, uniforms, and tactical training isn’t an act of aggression—it’s standard procedure to ensure officers can do their jobs safely in the face of rising hostility.

The suggestion that such procedures fuel attacks raises serious concerns. If law enforcement’s mere existence or appearance is portrayed as justification for political violence, it risks normalizing dangerous narratives. Citizens may disagree with policies, but disagreement must be channeled through the ballot box and civic engagement—not armed confrontation. The alternative is chaos, where federal officers tasked with upholding the law become targets simply for wearing a badge.

What O’Leary inadvertently underscores is a broader problem: the growing distrust in American institutions. But trust is not restored by weakening the very agencies that defend the nation. It is restored by ensuring these agencies remain accountable while still empowered to do their job effectively. Conservatives understand this balance—without strong institutions, individual liberty is at risk. Without accountability, bureaucratic overreach is inevitable.

At a moment when the nation faces both external threats and internal division, it’s essential to reaffirm the principle that violence has no excuse, and federal agencies tasked with national security must not be undermined by narratives that cast their basic enforcement duties as “oppression.” If the rhetoric must be toned down, let it begin with those who downplay the seriousness of attacks on government facilities. Peace and security demand clarity, not excuses.