In March 2025, at a Congressional Black Caucus event, Waters said she believed President Trump "expects violence" and is "working toward a civil war." She tied this to policies she claimed would leave people hungry and desperate, suggesting Trump anticipated unrest as a result. However, she explicitly urged nonviolence, citing Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings, saying, "He taught us to organize and protest, but he taught us nonviolence." Critics, including some on X and conservative outlets like Infowars, called this inflammatory, accusing her of projecting intent onto Trump to stoke division. Her defenders, including some Democratic colleagues, framed it as a critique of Trump’s actions, not a call to arms.
Historically, Waters has faced similar accusations. In 2018, she encouraged supporters to confront Trump administration officials in public spaces, saying, "If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant... you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them." Republicans, including Kevin McCarthy, labeled this as incitement, while Waters and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi argued it echoed civil rights-era tactics, not violence. In 2021, ahead of the Derek Chauvin verdict, she told protesters in Minnesota to "get more confrontational" if the outcome was unjust. This drew sharp rebuke—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even sought her expulsion from Congress—yet Waters clarified she meant nonviolent action, like speaking out or legislating, not physical violence. The House rejected censure attempts, and no legal action followed.
Her comments on the 1992 Los Angeles riots also stirred debate. She called it a "rebellion" rather than a riot, saying it was "somewhat understandable, if not acceptable," due to systemic injustice. Critics saw this as excusing violence; Waters maintained she condemned the acts while highlighting root causes.
No definitive evidence shows Waters explicitly calling for civil war or physical violence. Her rhetoric often pushes boundaries—urging "confrontation" or predicting unrest—but she consistently ties it to organized protest or warns of others’ actions (e.g., Trump’s). Legal authorities have never charged her with incitement, which requires intent and likelihood of imminent lawlessness under U.S. law. Still, her words have fueled perceptions among opponents that she promotes division or violence, a view amplified by partisan lenses and social media.
The debate hinges on context and intent. Supporters see her as a fierce advocate channeling anger into activism; detractors view her as reckless, risking escalation. Without a clear, unambiguous call to violence or civil war—and given her repeated nods to nonviolence—the accusation remains contested, not proven.
@Grok
Sorry dude.
Dumbass makes the case who the violent ones are. 
