I expected a legal battle when I challenged Eric Swalwell’s eligibility for the California governor’s race, questioning whether he met the state’s five-year residency requirement. Instead, he responded with a personal attack, dismissing me as a “MAGA idiot” on Twitter. That insult sparked a deeper investigation, led by myself and researcher Shannon Knutsen, into his past – specifically, his writings as a college student.
What we uncovered was deeply unsettling. In December 1999, while at Campbell University in North Carolina, Swalwell published an opinion piece in the student newspaper titled “U.S. Political Prisoners: A Cry for Justice.” Writing under the pseudonym “Eric Swalwell, The Radically Poetic,” he ended with a stark demand: “America, it’s time to wake up. Free Peltier. Free Abu-Jamal. Free all political prisoners.”
Leonard Peltier was convicted of the brutal murders of two FBI agents during a 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of the 1982 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. These weren’t minor offenses; they were the killings of dedicated law enforcement officers. Yet, Swalwell’s article presented both men as “political prisoners,” questioning their convictions and portraying them as victims of injustice.
The article didn’t confront the horror of murdering police officers; it glorified convicted killers as symbols of resistance. This wasn’t a spontaneous thought. It mirrored the dangerous rhetoric of 1960s and 70s extremist groups like the Weather Underground, who openly advocated armed struggle and viewed police as expendable oppressors. In their ideology, a uniform was justification for violence.
Swalwell’s column echoed that playbook, erasing the victims, elevating the perpetrators, and cloaking violence in the language of civil rights. The pattern didn’t disappear with his college years. On February 2, 2026, Swalwell posted on X, demanding that ICE officers “lose their masks” and “qualified immunity,” claiming they were responsible for tragic deaths. He even suggested stripping them of their driver’s licenses if elected governor.
This isn’t reasonable reform; it’s inflammatory language painting federal law enforcement as murderers and denying them essential protections. It’s a calculated move to rally the far left, recognizing that the Democratic nominee is favored in California’s governor’s race and that a strong turnout from the left is crucial in the primary. Swalwell is strategically positioning himself as a radical champion to secure that base.
His 1999 editorial wasn’t a youthful indiscretion; it was a preview of a worldview that fundamentally distrusts law enforcement. What makes this particularly striking is that Swalwell’s own father is a police chief. During a town hall meeting, when asked about his political leanings, Swalwell claimed his choices were “probably to antagonize my parents.”
That antagonism appears to extend to a broader hostility toward the profession his father represents. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue about law enforcement policy, Swalwell consistently frames officers as villains. His 1999 call to “Free” Peltier and Abu-Jamal, and his current efforts to dismantle protections for ICE officers, share a common thread: a deep-seated skepticism of police authority and a willingness to undermine those who uphold the law.
True leadership demands seriousness, respect for institutions – even while seeking to improve them – and recognition of the daily risks faced by law enforcement officers at all levels. Eric Swalwell’s past writings reveal a troubling character, one fundamentally unsuited to lead California. His record raises serious questions about his judgment and commitment to the rule of law.
Voters deserve to know that the man vying for the governorship once publicly advocated for the release of men convicted of murdering law enforcement officers, and now seeks to weaken the protections afforded to those who enforce our laws. California faces critical challenges – crime, homelessness, border security, economic instability – and it needs a governor who respects, rather than vilifies, those sworn to protect and serve.
Beyond this, a critical legal question remains: either Swalwell committed mortgage fraud in Washington, D.C., or he is ineligible to run for governor of California – he cannot have it both ways. This is the core of my petition before the court. But a larger moral question looms for voters. Does California want a governor who once championed the release of convicted cop killers and now aims to dismantle protections for federal immigration officers?
I believe the answer must be a resounding no. Eric Swalwell should withdraw from the governor’s race and resign from Congress. California deserves leadership grounded in the rule of law, not radical posturing designed to win a primary election.
