A resurfaced clip of a call-in to C-SPAN from September 8, 2019, has sparked new conversations about race, rhetoric, and responsibility in the media. The call, made by a caller from Texas, aired during an appearance by Fox News anchor Jeanine Pirro, who was promoting her book Radicals, Resistance, and Revenge. What followed was a passionate and emotional plea from the caller, condemning the rhetoric coming from Fox News, President Trump, and Pirro herself, accusing them of contributing to a climate of hate that he believes led to tragic events like the 2019 El Paso shooting.
The Call: “Trump Has Made America Hate Again”
The caller, whose identity was not disclosed, began by thanking C-SPAN for the opportunity to speak, before launching into a powerful critique of the current state of political and racial discourse in the U.S. His voice, characterized by a distinct southern accent, resonated with emotion as he described how he felt the rhetoric coming from Trump and Fox News had fostered a dangerous environment of hatred toward immigrants and people of color.
“Our president and our beautiful first lady, they went down to El Paso, Texas, and they posed with a baby that the president’s rhetoric, Fox News rhetoric, your rhetoric had helped to orphan,” the caller said, referencing the photo-op Trump and First Lady Melania Trump had with the infant son of two victims of the El Paso shooting. “And I think this thing about Trump making America great again—Trump has made America hate again.”
The caller continued, highlighting what he perceived as widespread racial prejudice within the Republican party. He recounted conversations where Republicans would make derogatory comments about Hispanic people, assuming that anyone speaking Spanish must be an immigrant or non-citizen.
Stay up-to-date with the latest news!
Subscribe and start recieving our daily emails.
“I hear it all the time when I talk to Republicans, and they say, ‘Oh, I went down to Texas and there are all these Mexicans down there and they’re all speaking Spanish,’” the caller said. “Well, I got news for you. Those weren’t Mexicans. Those were Americans.”
His voice became more impassioned as he referred to the El Paso shooter, who had targeted Hispanic people in what is widely regarded as a racially motivated hate crime. “That guy that went down to El Paso to shoot a bunch of Mexicans—he shot a bunch of Americans,” he exclaimed. “And I’m really tired of this anti-immigrant, anti-people with brown skin rhetoric that’s coming out of Fox News, coming out of people like you, and coming out of our president. It’s demeaning. It’s beneath the office. It’s beneath you.”
The caller ended by reminding Pirro of her past as a judge, implying that she should know better. “You used to be a judge. You know better. It’s time that that stopped,” he concluded, urging for a change in rhetoric that would foster unity rather than division.
This was the El Paso incident:
Jeanine Pirro’s Response: Defending Her Record
Jeanine Pirro, known for her fiery rhetoric and unwavering defense of President Trump, did not take the caller’s comments lightly. She immediately rejected his accusations, responding with equal passion and vigor.
“I refuse to accept your recitation of the facts. You are dead wrong,” Pirro said, with visible emotion. “The problem in this country is not the color of anyone. Don’t accuse me of any kind of issue related to that. I have 30 years of prosecuting without fear or favor and making sure that hate crimes were vigorously prosecuted.”
Pirro highlighted her long career in law enforcement, particularly her work prosecuting hate crimes and her historic role in convicting a white police officer for the killing of an African American. “I was the first prosecutor in the history of New York State to convict a white person, a police officer, of killing an African-American,” she said, using this to bolster her argument that she has always stood against racial hatred.
Pivoting from race, Pirro framed the issue as one of legality, drawing a sharp distinction between legal and illegal immigration. She argued that her and Trump’s rhetoric was not about race but about ensuring that people entering the country do so legally and can be properly vetted.
“The question is, do you come legally or illegally?” Pirro asked rhetorically. “If you come illegally, there is a problem. We don’t know who you are. We cannot vet you.”
She continued by discussing the strain that she believes illegal immigration places on social services and the safety risks posed by unvetted individuals crossing the southern border, where she claimed that 90% of the country’s heroin supply enters.
“Don’t you dare accuse anyone of racism and hate,” Pirro said in closing, defending her rhetoric and policies as being focused on law, not race. She acknowledged the tragedy in El Paso but maintained that the core issue was about illegal immigration and border control.
The Context: Rhetoric, Race, and Responsibility
The caller’s impassioned critique of the rhetoric surrounding race and immigration is reflective of a broader national conversation about the role public figures play in shaping public opinion. The El Paso shooting was widely seen as a hate crime, and the shooter’s manifesto explicitly referenced fears of a “Hispanic invasion,” echoing language used by some political figures and media outlets, including Trump’s frequent references to immigration as an “invasion” during his rallies.
The caller’s frustration stems from this pattern of rhetoric, which critics argue stokes fear and division, often along racial lines. While Pirro and others on Fox News may argue that their focus is on illegal immigration rather than race, the reality is more complex. Research shows that much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the media and politics is intertwined with racial stereotypes and fears, particularly against Hispanics and other communities of color.
The International Journal of Communication wrote a research paper The Relationship Between Fox News Use and Americans’ Policy Preferences Regarding Refugees and Immigrants. In the paper, they wrote (download):
- Fox News is creating/reinforcing its consumers’ migration-related policy preferences, whereas no such relationship exists for MSNBC and CNN consumers.”
- “FoxNews.com was significantly more likely to write its stories using language related to authority/subversion than was CNN.com.”
- “Republicans who viewed Fox News were less likely to accept climate change, and Republicans who viewed CNN/MSNBC were more accepting of climate change—an effect that did not hold for Democrats.”
- “A consistent pattern has emerged from research investigating the content and effects of Fox News. Its coverage of issues supports conservative- and Republican-leaning positions, and Fox News users hold policy preferences that mirror that coverage.”
- “Even after controlling for political ideology, the only news consumption variable that was significantly related to these preferences was use of Fox News.”
- “CNN.com was significantly more likely to discuss immigrants and refugees in terms of care/harm than was FoxNews.com.”
In this case, the caller directly challenged this narrative, making a clear distinction between legal immigration and the assumptions people make based on language or skin color. His plea was not just about politics but about the humanity of those who are often vilified in public discourse. He underscored that many of the people being targeted in these conversations are, in fact, Americans—and that this rhetoric, whether intentional or not, contributes to a climate of racial hatred.
Was Pirro’s Defense Fair?
Pirro’s defense of herself was rooted in her long career as a prosecutor and her work in prosecuting hate crimes, which certainly speaks to her commitment to justice in those specific cases. However, her dismissal of the caller’s concerns about rhetoric raises questions about whether she truly addressed the root of his argument.
While Pirro focused on the legal aspects of immigration, the caller was speaking to the broader climate of fear and racial animosity that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. The fact that the El Paso shooter explicitly cited fears of an “invasion” of Hispanics—language that mirrors Trump’s and Fox News’ rhetoric—cannot be ignored.
Pirro’s response may have been sincere in defending her personal record, but it arguably sidestepped the larger issue the caller was raising: the impact of inflammatory rhetoric on public perception and actions. Whether intentional or not, such language can fuel hate and violence, as tragically seen in El Paso.
In the end, the call serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of words and the responsibility public figures have in shaping the national discourse. Whether or not Pirro’s defense holds up, the caller’s emotional plea for change is one that resonates with many who are tired of the divisive rhetoric in today’s political landscape.
Featured image via screengrab
