The events following the tragic mass killing in New Orleans quickly ignited intense partisan debate, illustrating how swiftly such incidents can be politicized. President-elect Donald Trump's immediate response on social media suggested that the incident was a direct consequence of what he described as lax immigration policies. His narrative was based on early but incorrect reports that linked the suspect's actions to immigration, despite learning later that the suspect, Shamsud-Din Jabbar—a U.S. Army veteran and American citizen—was not an immigrant. Despite the correction of facts, Trump maintained his stance, attributing the tragedy to President Biden's "open border policy" and hinting at a threat of "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Influential adviser Stephen Miller further echoed this sentiment by suggesting that the roots of such terrorism in America were imported rather than homegrown. Jabbar's past, including his apparent support for the Islamic State (IS) and findings of an IS flag and weapons in his vehicle, lent a somewhat complicated backdrop to the conversation about domestic terrorism—a phenomenon that has plagued the U.S. for years, independent of specific administrations. Historical cases like the Fort Hood shooting, the San Bernardino attack, and the Pulse nightclub shooting illustrate that terrorism can arise from various sources and motivations. Republican leaders sought to frame the narrative around a perceived failure of Biden's administration, with Speaker Mike Johnson emphasizing the need for a return to what he termed “real law and order” under Trump. This rhetoric reflects an ongoing strategy to leverage tragic events for political gain, particularly by suggesting a direct correlation between the current administration's policies and national safety. On the other hand, Democrats, like Rep. Troy Carter, criticized their Republican counterparts for attempting to make the New Orleans tragedy a partisan issue, arguing for a more unified approach to addressing the complex challenges of domestic terrorism. As the political landscape intensifies in anticipation of Trump's inauguration, it remains to be seen how these narratives will shape national discourse and policy, particularly in areas concerning immigration, national security, and law enforcement. The notion that future presidents can provide immunity from domestic terrorism seems increasingly unrealistic, yet the calls for action from the GOP signal a potentially more aggressive stance on these matters in the coming administration