Rep. Susie Lee, a four-term Nevada Democrat who represents a district Donald Trump carried in 2024, posted a profanity-lraged late-night social media tirade against the president, then deleted it by morning and tried to reframe the outburst as constitutional principle.
The 59-year-old lawmaker fired off her post shortly before 1 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday, reacting to an Associated Press report that Trump planned to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. Fox News Digital reported that Lee wrote: “So f—ing f—ed up. I’ll pray they f— him to his face.” She followed up with a second post: “Sorry, I say f— a lot these days.”
By Wednesday morning, the post was gone. Lee deleted it, but not before screenshots circulated and Republican campaign operatives seized on the remarks as evidence that a swing-district Democrat had lost her composure in full public view.
Rather than apologize, Lee posted a statement on her personal social media account that recast the episode as righteous anger. A spokesperson directed inquiries to that statement.
Lee said:
“Clearly my language touched a nerve, my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it.”
That framing asks voters to look past the language and see a defender of institutional norms. The trouble is that nothing in Trump’s plan to attend Supreme Court oral arguments, a proceeding open to the public, violated any constitutional boundary. Presidents are free to observe the Court at work. Lee’s post did not identify a specific constitutional offense. It simply expressed rage.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, wasted no time. NRCC spokesman Christian Martinez issued a statement that landed squarely on Lee’s political vulnerability.
“Democrat Susie Lee has become Nevada’s fool, more focused on vulgar outbursts than doing the job she was elected to do. Hitting delete doesn’t clean up her mess, it just proves she knows how embarrassing it is.”
The NRCC has reason to watch Lee closely. Trump won her suburban Las Vegas district by less than one point in 2024. That margin makes her one of the most exposed Democrats in the House, a lawmaker who cannot afford to alienate the center of her electorate with conduct that reads as unhinged rather than principled.
Conservative commentator Steve Guest piled on, writing that “either Democrat Rep. Susie Lee was blackout drunk when she tweeted this or it was a staffer posting from her account.” Conservative personality Eric Daugherty also responded online.
The underlying issue is Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship, a legal question now before the Supreme Court. Trump planned to attend oral arguments Wednesday, a move that drew attention and protest outside the Court in Washington, D.C.
In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump spoke with Fox News’ Peter Doocy about the case. He framed the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee as historically tied to American slavery, not modern immigration patterns.
“I have listened to this argument for so long, and this is not about Chinese billionaires, or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case, or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves. It had to do with the babies of slaves.”
Trump added that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship “didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years.”
The Trump administration has argued that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to American slaves and their children, not to the descendants of illegal immigrants or those living in the United States temporarily. That argument is now squarely before the justices.
Whatever the legal merits of the birthright citizenship fight, the political question for Susie Lee is simpler: Does a profanity-laden 1 a.m. social media post help her hold a district Trump just won? The answer is obvious. Congressional oversight and legitimate policy disagreement are one thing. Incoherent late-night vulgarity is another.
Lee is not a backbencher from a safe blue seat who can afford to play to the progressive base without consequence. She is a four-term incumbent in a swing district where every margin matters. Her decision to delete the post by morning suggests she, or someone on her team, understood the damage. Her decision to then double down with a defiant statement suggests she was unwilling to admit the obvious.
Congressional accountability has been a recurring theme this session. Across the aisle, House Oversight has pressed for transparency on DOJ handling of sensitive files, a reminder that lawmakers in both parties face scrutiny when their conduct falls short of public expectations.
Lee’s spokesperson pointed reporters to the social media statement and offered no further comment. That leaves voters to decide whether a congresswoman who represents a competitive Nevada district should be posting expletive-filled rants at 1 a.m., and whether wrapping it in constitutional language afterward changes anything.
The episode is small in scale but telling in pattern. Elected officials increasingly treat social media as a pressure valve, posting raw emotion and then scrubbing the record when daylight arrives. The problem is that the internet doesn’t forget, opponents screenshot everything, and voters in tight districts notice.
Lee’s language was not a policy argument. It was not a floor speech. It was not a press conference where a lawmaker makes a forceful case against a presidential action. It was a late-night outburst that she herself felt compelled to erase before the morning news cycle.
If Lee’s nerve was truly touched by a threat to the Constitution, she has every tool available to a sitting member of Congress, hearings, legislation, floor statements, coalition letters, to make that case in a way that persuades rather than repels. She chose a different path.
Deleting the post didn’t erase the problem. It just confirmed she knew she had one.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.