Watching Juan Gaslight Us All

Gaslighting: When the Conversation Quietly Shifts

Political language can illuminate. It can persuade. And sometimes, it can redirect attention so deftly that you almost admire the craftsmanship.

In recent weeks, constituents in Arizona’s Congressional District 6 have raised concerns about large-scale deportation efforts affecting immigrant communities. The concern is straightforward: What is the scope of these operations, and how will they affect families and local communities?

The response from Rep. Juan Ciscomani, in his February 10, 2026 newsletter, reads as follows:

“As Vice Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I take seriously my duty to provide strong oversight while ensuring DHS has the resources it needs to carry out its mission effectively and responsibly. Delivering certainty and stability for these critical operations is key to national security and public safety.”

At first glance, the statement is reassuring. It invokes oversight, stability, responsibility, and public safety — all worthy goals.

But notice what has happened.

The original concern centers on deportation policy and its human impact. The response centers on institutional stability and departmental funding. Those are not identical topics.

This is where the concept of gaslighting enters the discussion.

Merriam-Webster defines gaslighting as manipulating someone so that they question their perception of reality. The term originated in the 1944 film Gaslight, in which a husband convinces his wife that the flickering lamps in their home are merely her imagination.

Political gaslighting rarely involves flickering lamps. Instead, it operates through reframing. The issue doesn’t disappear — it simply shifts. The question being asked is subtly replaced by a different, safer one.

In this case, the policy mechanics matter.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received substantial multiyear funding allocations under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) passed in July 2025. These funds are distinct from the annual Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations process.

That distinction is important.

When constituents express concern about deportation scope, enforcement intensity, or community impact, those concerns relate directly to ICE and CBP operational priorities. Referring to “DHS stability” during annual appropriations debates does not directly address those concerns — particularly when ICE and CBP funding streams are already secured through separate legislative action.

One conversation is about deportation practices.
The other is about departmental funding continuity.

They intersect, but they are not interchangeable.

This does not necessarily imply malice. Political communication often prioritizes broader narratives over granular details. Emphasizing “national security” and “stability” is rhetorically safer than engaging directly with emotionally charged enforcement questions.

But the effect is nonetheless real. When a specific policy worry is answered with a broader institutional reassurance, the practical result can feel like misdirection. The focus shifts from “What are you doing?” to “Trust that we are managing things responsibly.”

Reasonable observers may disagree about whether this constitutes gaslighting. Some may see it as disciplined messaging. Others may view it as a classic example of reframing to avoid uncomfortable specifics.

The key point is this: democratic accountability depends on keeping the conversation aligned with the original question.

If constituents ask about deportation practices, the response should address deportation practices. If funding mechanics are relevant, they should be explained clearly — including distinctions between annual DHS appropriations and multiyear enforcement allocations.

Precision matters.

In counterintelligence work — a field I once had the privilege to serve in — we evaluated information along two axes: accuracy and reliability. Is the statement factually grounded? And is the source consistently aligned with observable reality?

Public officials should withstand similar scrutiny. Not as a partisan exercise, but as a civic obligation.

The issue here is not whether border security is important. It is. Nor is it whether DHS requires stable funding. It does.

The issue is whether the answer matches the question.

Political language is at its healthiest when it narrows the gap between public concern and public explanation. It becomes problematic when that gap widens — when specificity dissolves into general reassurance.

Gaslighting, at its most effective, does not shout. It does not require outrage. It simply nudges the frame.

The lights don’t flicker.
The words remain calm.
The topic shifts ever so slightly.

And then we are left to decide whether we are watching oversight — or something more subtle.

The scoring, as always, is up to the reader.