Free speech does not shield Keith Swank from accountability

Pierce County’s sheriff can speak his mind, but his comments about certain groups have consequences in law enforcement.

By M. J. Cameron

Keith Swank was elected Pierce County sheriff in November 2024, defeating Patti Jackson in the Pierce County election for sheriff. Since being sworn into office Jan. 1, 2025, he has drawn criticism for multiple controversial social media statements that have raised concerns across the community. 

Swank’s statements have included inflammatory remarks about the LGBTQ community, immigrants, Democrats and others. While freedom of speech is a protected right in the U.S., that right does not free an elected public official from accountability, especially when those words carry extra weight and call into question his ability to serve all Pierce County residents fairly and without bias. 

To better understand the controversy and the public response, I spoke with Peter Talbot, a reporter for The News Tribune who has written about Swank. When asked about Swank’s work as a sheriff, Talbot said his effectiveness is difficult to judge. He said Swank has done a fine job serving the county in law enforcement, and that violent and property crimes have gone down in 2025 compared to 2024. A article by Talbot published by The News Tribune on March 11 provides data on these crimes from 2024 and 2025 in Pierce County. However, Talbot also said those changes cannot be tied to one leader alone.  

While Talbot didn’t mention other factors, some include the Violent Crime Reduction plan, which included hot-spot policing and data identification, and the Pierce County Justice Fund, which provided dedicated revenue to properly staff sheriff deputies, prosecutors and public defenders.  

Talbot said that Swank has stirred up controversy due to his inflammatory use of social media, including his remarks towards transgender people not being allowed to own firearms, which has led to questions about his ability to provide the same level of services to all people in Pierce County regardless of their protected class. The post Talbot is referring to can be found on X. 

In an interview with The Ledger, Swank said some of his provocative posts were intentional and were meant to “call them [Democrats] out.” Referring to the same post, Swank said his goal was to challenge Democrats who support both gun control and transgender rights. 

“Do you support transgender rights, and if you do, you should support the right for them to have guns,” Swank said. “They say they’re for gun control or sensible gun legislation, so there I was giving them an option to take away guns from people to keep our community safe.” 

Swank said he is an “almost” Second Amendment absolutist and believes everyone, including transgender people, should have the right to own guns. 

Swank’s explanation during the interview may vaguely clarify what he says he meant, but it does not erase the impact of the post it held. His argument may point to a broader political contradiction over gun rights and transgender rights, but the way he framed the message weakened that argument. If his goal was to criticize Democrats over gun policy, he could have made that point without using transgender people or transphobic language as the subject of a provocative post.  

Asking if transgender people should be banned from owning guns is linked to transphobic ideas that gender dysphoria is considered a mental instability, something that Swank potentially agrees with according to a post he made on X, referring to gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder.  

Social media often strips away context, making the user’s intent harder to interpret. When Swank posted, “do you think it’s time to ban trans people from owning guns,” it was easy for certain viewers to read the post as hateful or transphobic. Even if Swank says that was not his intent, public officials must understand that their words are judged not only by what they meant, but also by how those words affect the communities they serve. 

Swank said many people agree with him and that those he refers to as “the left” make the most noise. He also said critics try to dox and cancel people with conservative values in Washington state. 

However, public criticism is not the same as censorship. When an elected official makes public statements, the public has the right to respond. That is not to say cancel culture isn’t toxic, or doxing isn’t wrong, but public response becomes important when the official holds power over law enforcement, public safety and community trust. 

According to Talbot, people have filed complaints with the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) over Swank’s social media activity. Talbot said there are “two or three” cases with the CJTC based on multiple complaints about Swank’s use of social media. 

Another complaint involved Swank’s use of social media during the 2025 Pierce County Charter Review Commission election. Talbot said Swank tweeted recommendations about who people should vote for, which raised concerns about possible misuse of office. The CJTC may or may not choose to investigate, according to Talbot. 

In response to the complaints, Swank said that the Democrat party is trying to control his speech and that he will “double down and say even more provocative things on purpose” so they can continue to file more complaints. 

Even if the CJTC does not investigate, the complaints show that Swank’s social media conduct has moved beyond online backlash and political disagreement. While Swank is using his First Amendment right to speak his views on social media without government censorship, it does not protect him from residential complaints to the CJTC. If they choose to investigate, they will consider that Swank’s posts have interfered with public trust, which goes against the Pierce County ethics code that recognizes the need for integrity in the government. 

The major legal consequence to Swank’s social media posts has been SB 5974, which took effect April 30. The bill strengthens laws concerning sheriffs, police chiefs, town marshals, law enforcement agency volunteers, youth cadets, specially commissioned officers and police matrons. It establishes a mandatory minimum age, experience and background investigations. The bill also allows the CJTC to set certification standards for elected sheriffs, police officers and town marshals while allowing them to decertify those who don’t meet the standards.  

In response to the bill, Swank said that he’s not leaving or worried about the bill. He said that the CJTC might say that they decertify him and that means he must leave his position, but he won’t leave.   

“What are they gonna do, are they gonna come arrest me?” Swank said. “Are they gonna send state patrol to forcefully remove me or kill me or something like that?” 

Talbot told The Ledger that Swank’s behavior of acting above Washington law is concerning for a public official. To imply that the state carrying out its laws could result in an insurrection or large uprising where physical force is used to stop the government from removing him.  

“For some people it really fractures public trust in law enforcement that an officer would openly say that they will not follow what the legislature has passed,” Talbot said. “For people that support Swank, that might increase their trust in him for standing up for their right to elect the sheriff and keep them in office.” 

Swank said that he’s not leaving because the CJTC doesn’t have the authority to tell him that he can’t say what he wants to say and then use it to decertify him. The issue with that argument is that Swank’s social media posts have concerning remarks that affect public trust, such as claiming the sheriff’s office won’t hire noncitizens, which is against SB 5068. Another remark includes his desire to collaborate with ICE, which was reported by The Seattle Times. For immigrants and other residents who may already feel vulnerable, those statements can make the sheriff’s office appear less neutral and more political. 

Public reaction shows how deeply divided the county has become over Swank’s conduct. One Reddit thread titled “Sheriff Keith Swank-A Threat to the Safety of All Pierce County Residents” received hundreds of upvotes and comments with mixed opinions. Reddit is not an official measure of public opinion, but the discussion shows that some residents are openly questioning whether they can feel safe under Swank’s leadership. 

Public trust is not optional in law enforcement. A sheriff’s authority depends not only on the badge, but also on the public’s belief that the office will serve everyone fairly. 

Swank told The Ledger that if the state tries to remove him from office, there will be “hundreds if not thousands” of people surrounding the county city building and not allow it to happen through peaceful protests, which addresses the concern of a physical threat in his public legislative hearing regarding the bill, but the statement raises concern because it suggests that public pressure could be used to resist a legal process. 

A sheriff cannot serve only the people who agree with him. He is responsible for all Pierce County residents, including immigrants, LGBTQ residents, Democrats, conservatives and people with no political affiliation. When his public comments make some residents question whether they will be treated fairly, the damage is not just political. It affects the credibility of the sheriff’s office itself.