Jonathan Turley, the Law Professor Who Called for Clinton's Impeachment but Defended Trump, Writes an Op-Ed Explaining Why Your Outrage Is Wrong
Welcome to The Hill, Where Both Sides Pay the Same Amount to Explain Why the Other Side Is Destroying Democracy, One Column at a Time
When Outrage Runs Ahead of the Evidence: A Closer Look at the Border Patrol Controversy
Jonathan Turley’s recent opinion piece in The Hill argues that the left manufactured another false story to generate outrage, pointing to the 2021 incident at Del Rio where Border Patrol agents on horseback were accused of whipping Haitian migrants. He has a point, but as with most politically charged controversies, the reality is more complicated than either side wants to admit. Turley’s analysis, while containing accurate information, deliberately misleads readers by using a selective interpretation of facts to reach a predetermined political conclusion.
The Incident at Del Rio
The story began in September 2021 when photos circulated showing mounted Border Patrol agents pursuing Haitian migrants near the Rio Grande in Del Rio, Texas. The images went viral with claims that agents were using their horse reins like whips against the migrants. Politicians including President Biden, Vice President Harris, and congressional leaders condemned what they described as whipping (Wikipedia contributors, 2024). Turley now calls this a false story designed to trigger outrage, and the evidence partially supports his skepticism about the original narrative.
The photographer who captured the images, Paul Ratje, told PolitiFact that he never saw any agent whip a migrant. Ratje explained that the agents were swinging their reins to direct their horses, not striking people. When he asked colleagues at the scene whether they witnessed whipping, they also said no. The photographer acknowledged that the agents’ behavior looked threatening, but he was clear that no one actually struck a migrant with reins (Sherman, 2021).
The Official Investigation
The official investigation conducted by Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed this assessment. After an almost year-long investigation, investigators concluded there was no evidence that agents struck migrants with their reins, whether intentionally or accidentally (Ainsley, 2022). The report documented that approximately 15,000 Haitian migrants had gathered near the Del Rio bridge, and mounted agents were attempting to block them from crossing at a boat ramp. Texas Department of Public Safety officials had requested that Border Patrol push migrants back into the river, which contradicted the agency’s standard operating procedures for handling people who had already entered United States territory.
Where Turley Misleads
Turley is right to point out that political figures rushed to judgment before the facts were known. Biden described seeing people being strapped and promised that those responsible would pay. Harris said the images invoked images of some of the worst moments of our history involving slavery and oppression of Indigenous peoples. Senate Majority Leader Schumer and House Speaker Pelosi both referenced whips in their condemnation of the incident. This rush to interpret ambiguous photos as proof of systemic cruelty reflects a broader pattern in American political discourse, where viral imagery often shapes narrative before context can be established.
However, Turley’s framing that the agents were entirely innocent victims of a political smear ignores what the investigation actually documented. Even without whipping, agents used unnecessary force and the threat of force against migrants who were well within United States territory. One agent was documented using derogatory language toward migrants, including remarks about men using women and disparaging comments about their home country. Four agents ultimately faced disciplinary action, though the consequences were relatively minor, consisting largely of administrative measures rather than significant punishment (Ainsley, 2022).
This is where Turley’s argument becomes deliberately misleading. He presents the disciplinary actions as evidence of the administration seeking scapegoats to protect the president, but the documented misconduct provides a legitimate basis for discipline independent of the whipping controversy. A person can be falsely accused of whipping while simultaneously engaging in other conduct that warrants administrative consequences. The horses were used to block and intimidate migrants, agents used threatening language, and some maneuvers were performed unsafely near children and families. These are real issues that an internal investigation would reasonably address.
Turley engages in what might be called motivated reasoning in reverse. Where most people follow evidence to a conclusion, Turley starts with a conclusion, that the left manufactures outrage through false stories, and then selectively emphasizes facts that support that narrative while downplaying information that complicates it. He correctly notes that no one was whipped, but he uses that accurate fact to imply that no misconduct occurred at all, which the investigation’s own findings contradict.
The Pattern of Selective Framing
What the incident reveals is a familiar problem in American public life that Turley himself demonstrates. The outrage machine runs on incomplete information and interpretable imagery. Activists and politicians saw whips where there were reins, and they built moral condemnation around that interpretation. But the counter-narrative, which Turley represents, sometimes overcorrects in the opposite direction. The agents were not innocent cowboys caught in a media hoax. They were professionals who used poor judgment, engaged in threatening conduct, and created dangerous conditions for vulnerable people seeking asylum. Their punishment was not entirely unjustified, even if the original accusation was exaggerated.
The deeper issue is how quickly modern American discourse abandons nuance. Either the agents were whipping migrants and represented systemic racism in law enforcement, or they were innocent heroes smeared by left-wing media. The evidence suggests neither extreme. The truth sits in an uncomfortable middle where visual ambiguity allowed both interpretations to seem plausible, and where political incentives encouraged people to choose their preferred narrative based on existing ideological commitments rather than waiting for facts.
Turley’s call for more careful analysis before condemnation has surface appeal, but his own analysis would be more credible if he acknowledged that the agents faced consequences for documented misconduct rather than fictional crimes. When we insist on evidence and receipts, we should apply that standard consistently to all parties, including those defending the agents. The truth in this case is that no one comes out looking particularly good: the politicians overreacted, the media sensationalized, the agents made poor choices under difficult circumstances, and the investigation ultimately documented genuine problems even as it cleared agents of the specific allegation that launched the controversy.
Turley’s piece exemplifies the very problem it claims to critique. By starting with a predetermined story about manufactured outrage and selectively applying facts, he creates his own form of misleading narrative. The legitimate lesson from Del Rio is that we should wait for evidence before condemning people, but Turley extends that lesson beyond what the evidence supports, using one accurate fact to paper over a pattern of documented misconduct.
If you’re interested in what happens when you let the human equivalent of a warm toilet seat write an opinion piece you can read Turley’s nonsense here: https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/5703961-clickbait-how-the-left-created-another-false-story-to-trigger-outrage/
References
Ainsley, J. (2022, July 8). DHS says Border Patrol agents used force on Haitians, but didn’t whip them. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/dhs-report-says-border-patrol-agents-used-unnecessary-force-haitians-t-rcna36992
Sherman, A. (2021, September 28). Viral images of Border Patrol on horses and Haitian migrants have sparked outrage. Here’s what we know. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/border-patrol-haitian-immigrants-whip-horses-fact-check/
Turley, J. (2022, July 9). Punishment of Border Patrol agents is about protecting a president, not migrants. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3550909-punishment-of-border-patrol-agents-is-about-protecting-a-president-not-migrants/
Wikipedia contributors. (2024). 2021 Haitian migrant whip controversy. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Haitian_migrant_whip_controversy