Weaponize is a Republican Word
And it was gestated back in 2018 by the Freedom Caucus
Before I get into the insight of this week, a quick note: there was some new work published using DCinbox data over at Talking Points Memo for Kenny Stancil’s piece, “Democrats Shouldn’t Let Russell Vought Fly Under the Radar” The visualizations are neat, and the piece is a good reminder that there is a lot to learn from the universe of official congressional e-newsletters. Try as I might, I can’t do it all. So if there is something you think DCinbox data could help you learn or understand, feel free to reach out at lindsey@dcinbox.com and we can chat through access options.
Now to the weaponize insight of this week. In official congressional communications weaponize is a word that is just now being said by Democrats at similar rates as it is by Republicans. Democrats are talking about President Trump's $1.776 billion 'weaponization' fund. Calling it a slush fund and an “illegal abuse of taxpayer dollars. Plain and simple. It’s baseless corruption”
And some Republicans are taking issue with the fund as well, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick has introduced legislation to “block this fund and make sure not one dime of taxpayer money is turned into a discretionary payout.”
But for last 13 years anytime I saw the word “weaponize” in an official e-newsletters, it was overwhelming (86% of the time) in Republican communications - and mostly from Freedom Caucus members. It’s a lot like the word, “unleash”.
Early Uses
The first official congressional e-newsletter in DCinbox to use the word “weaponize” came in 2013 from Senator Johnny Isakson, who asked “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” In 2013 and 2014, the word appeared a few more times, but mostly in more literal or security-related contexts: drones, Iran, ISIS, Ebola. In the early days, “weaponize” initially meant something closer to what the word sounds like: turning something into a weapon.
Here’s a use from then-Senator Marco Rubio in 2013,
The Shift to Government Action/Agency
The shift to using weaponize as a description of some form of American government action was in 2015. The first came from Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL) - a founding member of the U.S. House Freedom Caucus in 2015 - who wrote that “Lois Lerner weaponized the IRS and used her authority to infringe the rights of American citizens.”
In early 2016, Paul Gosar (R-AZ) also of the newly formed Freedom Caucus wrote:
“Ultimately, the Obama administration will be defined by a legacy of lawlessness. They have opened the door to unprecedented abuse of executive overreach that threaten the foundation of our Republic. Whether it is the DOJ, IRS, EPA or DHS, President Obama has weaponized government agencies in order to punish his political opponents and enact his partisan agenda by any and all means necessary.”
Charles Boustany (R-LA) - who was not a Freedom Caucus member soon used similar language to describe the regulatory process as having been “weaponized” against oil and gas, agriculture, finance, and other industries.
In 2017, Don Beyer was the first Democrat I found using the word in this federal-government-action sense, arguing that House Republicans had “weaponized the CRA,” or Congressional Review Act to decry efforts of those in the chamber who voted to gut the Stream Protection Rule, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) methane waste rule, the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) resource extraction rule, BLM’s Planning 2.0 Rule, and the Alaska Wildlife Protection Rule.
By 2018 things started to get systematic and “weaponize” in the context of government actions was used by multiple Republican legislators, most of whom were Freedom Caucus (FC) members. In the first half of the year the word shows up in communications sent by Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Mark Sanford, Jeff Duncan, Brian Babin, Steve King, Clay Higgins, and Jody Hice all of whom were in the Freedom Caucus - though Babin left later.
Later in the year more Republicans used the word (some FC members and some not): Mark Amodei (not FC), Clay Higgins (FC) Representative Daniel Webster (Not in the FC, but was endorsed by the FC for the Speaker race in 2015 to replace John Boehner), Rob Bishop (Not in the FC but was floated in 2015 and 2018 by FC members for speaker as a compromise candidate), Jody Hice (FC), Peter Roskam (Not FC), Jeff Denham (Not FC), Congressman Greg Gianforte (not FC).
The first representative to talk about weaponization as something that the government has done against Donald Trump was Representative Doug Collins who was not in FC, and wrote:
“Democrats aren’t hiding their plans to oppose President Trump through the Judiciary Committee, but America remains a nation of ideas, principles, and laws. Right now, it seems like some Members of Congress want to weaponize taxpayer resources against a president instead of focusing on building the economy and creating more jobs. Conservatives, though, are here to ensure that liberals don’t use their majority in the House to chase political vendettas at deep costand no benefitto hardworking Americans.”
Over time, Democrats began using it too, especially in response to Trump-era actions: data being weaponized against democracy ala Cambridge Analytica, pardons being weaponized, family separation as weaponizing the love between parents and children. But even when Democrats use the word, they are operating on rhetorical terrain that Republicans mostly pioneered.
And everyones favorite honorary - though not technically affiliated - Freedom Caucus Representative, Matt Gaetz got into the weaponizing work as soon as he was elected.
The years 2019 and 2020 had similar uses and similar senders - and the weaponization application expanded to “weaponizing of the 25th Amendment”, “weaponizing impeachment”, “Weaponizing and Politicizing the DOJ, FBI, and the Intelligence Community”, allegations that “Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are trying to “weaponize” the infection to win political points.”
The Take Off
And then there was the big bump in 2021 - 2025 where Republican legislators continued to expand the scope of the term beyond a focus on activities at the DOJ to “weaponizing the federal budget to advance the left’s anti-life agenda.”, “the Endangered Species Act to be weaponized against farmers”, “weaponizing the IRS to spy on our bank accounts” ← Weaponizing the IRS was the rallying cry of 2021-2022, “weaponizes the Federal Election Commission”, “weaponize the NDAA”, “weaponizing federal law enforcement against parents”, and more
The Freedom Caucus has also been very effective at changing the tone and vocabulary of Republican politics. “Weaponize” is a perfect example. The word does a lot of work because it turns a policy disagreement into an accusation of abuse, regulation into persecution, and bureaucratic action into political warfare. Out the the members who sent the most official e-newsletters mentioning “weaponization at all”, 8 are Caucus members.
The Insight
The framing of “weaponization” began as a distinctly Republican way to talk about federal power, with especially strong roots in the Freedom Caucus universe. Having managed this archive for 15+ years I think it is one of my core take-aways: The Freedom Caucus helped teach the Republican Party how to talk in a more unified and verbally polarizing way that does well in the internet because those members have a better sense of what will ricochet around. Their procedural wins have been noteworthy, they are less capable of legislative wins outright owning to their small-ish size, but in terms of communications politics they are some of the best and that does eventually drive change, because before a party can change policy, it often has to change the words people use to describe the problem.