In June 2025, North Carolina state Representative Julie von Haefen, a Democrat from Wake County, became embroiled in a political controversy after posting a video from a “No Kings” protest in Raleigh. The video included a single frame showing a protester holding a sign with a guillotine and what appeared to be a fake severed head resembling former President Donald Trump. While the protest was part of broader demonstrations against perceived authoritarianism in government, the image quickly drew criticism for its graphic and violent symbolism. Von Haefen’s intent was to document civic engagement, but the inclusion of the guillotine frame sparked intense public scrutiny and debate over appropriateness and political responsibility.

The post provoked rapid criticism, particularly from North Carolina Republicans, who called the imagery unacceptable and urged von Haefen to resign. Party leaders argued the post demonstrated poor judgment and risked promoting political violence, especially in a climate of heightened concern following recent attacks on public officials in other states. Conservative commentators emphasized that elected representatives have a responsibility to avoid amplifying violent symbolism, framing the post as crossing ethical and societal lines. In response to the mounting pressure, von Haefen made her social media account private and eventually deleted the controversial video.

Following the backlash, von Haefen issued a public statement acknowledging that the image was inappropriate. She clarified that the guillotine frame was only one moment among many in her video, which aimed to show protest turnout rather than endorse violence. Von Haefen condemned political violence in all forms and emphasized her intention to highlight civic participation at the “No Kings” rally. She expressed regret for the oversight and explained that the video was removed as soon as she recognized its potential to be misinterpreted. Supporters framed this as an honest mistake in documenting protest activity, while critics viewed it as a lapse in judgment by a public official.

Von Haefen later delivered a formal apology on the floor of the North Carolina House of Representatives, addressing her colleagues, constituents, and the public. She reiterated her condemnation of political violence and acknowledged the misstep in sharing the graphic image. Her remarks underscored a commitment to civil discourse and transparency in her role as a lawmaker. The House discussion also touched on broader concerns about political communication, urging caution in social media usage and stressing the importance of avoiding content that could be interpreted as promoting violence, especially amid heightened political polarization and safety concerns.

The incident sparked wider debate over elected officials’ responsibilities on social media and the potential consequences of sharing politically charged or graphic content. Supporters argued that von Haefen was documenting a public protest without endorsing violent imagery, while critics contended that the inclusion of the guillotine frame called her judgment and decorum into question. The controversy highlighted how visual content from protests can become flashpoints in partisan discourse and influence public perceptions of lawmakers, even when the imagery is not created or promoted by the official themselves. The “No Kings” context, emphasizing democratic principles and critique of executive overreach, was often overshadowed by focus on the graphic symbolism.

The controversy also raised questions about social media retention and compliance with state record-keeping laws for public officials. Von Haefen’s deletion of her account prompted scrutiny regarding transparency and archiving of official communications. Despite calls for her resignation, no formal actions have been taken, and she continues to serve in the North Carolina House. The episode illustrates the complex challenges lawmakers face in navigating social media, public perception, protest coverage, and accountability in a polarized political climate, where even brief and unintended imagery can provoke national debate and scrutiny.