It’s no secret that the aftermath of a tragedy often brings out the sharpest divides in public discourse, and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell seems determined to widen that gulf with his recent comments.
In a segment that was as inflammatory as it was reductive, O’Donnell argued that the real threat of terrorism in the United States doesn’t come from illegal border crossings but from American military veterans. Yes, you heard that right—the men and women who serve this country in uniform.
Now, let’s be clear: Timothy McVeigh, the architect of the Oklahoma City bombing, was indeed a U.S. Army veteran. His actions were despicable, and his service did not prevent him from committing one of the worst acts of domestic terrorism in American history. But to extrapolate McVeigh’s actions—or the actions of any isolated bad actor—as evidence that military veterans as a group pose a greater terror threat than those exploiting weaknesses at the southern border? That’s not just misleading—it’s downright irresponsible.
O’Donnell seems to have ignored some critical facts. While McVeigh’s attack was devastating, the current threat landscape isn’t defined by the ghosts of the 1990s. It’s defined by the very real and very recent patterns of terror recruitment, radicalization, and action by individuals who have entered the country illegally or exploited the asylum system.
Take the New Orleans attacker, Shamsud-Din Jabbar. While O’Donnell was quick to lump him into the “veteran terrorist” narrative, he brushed past the glaring detail that an ISIS flag was found in Jabbar’s vehicle. This wasn’t just an act of senseless violence—it bore all the hallmarks of ideological extremism.
Furthermore, the FBI’s handling of the situation speaks volumes. Initially calling the attack “not terrorism” and then reversing course to label it an act of terror suggests a hesitancy—perhaps even political caution—in acknowledging the nature of the threat. But the presence of an ISIS flag doesn’t lie.
What O’Donnell’s commentary misses—intentionally or otherwise—is the nuance and context required to have an honest conversation about threats to national security. Are there veterans who have committed acts of terror? Tragically, yes. But those cases are exceptions, not rules. And it’s deeply unfair—not to mention demoralizing—to cast suspicion on the millions of honorable veterans because of the actions of a tiny, deranged few.
But let’s also address the southern border. Are most people crossing illegally terrorists? Of course not. But let’s not pretend the border isn’t a vulnerability being actively exploited by bad actors, including individuals on terrorist watch lists. Nearly 300 individuals on the terror watch list were apprehended at the southern border in recent years. And those are just the ones we know about.
O’Donnell’s argument doesn’t just fail at logic—it feels like an intentional effort to redirect blame and muddy the waters of a conversation that demands clarity. It’s not about veterans or illegal immigrants. It’s about identifying and addressing every avenue through which bad actors—regardless of background—can pose a threat to public safety.
