A Fox News columnist's effort to defend President Donald Trump took an unexpected turn when his argument inadvertently aligned with the language of the Black Lives Matter movement — even as protests over police use of force intensified in Madison, Wisconsin.

Mike Davis, founder of the Article 3 Project, an organization that describes itself as fighting "lawfare" on Trump's behalf, wrote in a Fox News opinion column that readers should be outraged by police brutality. Davis, a former chief counsel for nominations under Senator Chuck Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been one of the more vocal outside allies framing the federal cases against Trump as politically motivated prosecutions.

"If a police officer unlawfully beats a suspect without cause and violates his civil rights, that officer should face legal accountability," Davis told conservative readers.

Davis's call for police accountability came as demonstrators took to the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, following the death of Corey Ruiz. According to NBC News reporting, Ruiz, 38, was tackled, tased, kicked, and fatally shot three times on Wednesday. Police stated that Ruiz had pulled a knife, but protesters contend that the level of force used was excessive.

Approximately 200 protesters marched through Madison on Thursday night, chanting "Black Lives Matter" and "These killer cops have got to go." Ruiz's mother, weeping, told reporters: "They took my baby from me."

The reason Davis invoked the issue of police brutality in his column was to draw a parallel to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought criminal charges against Trump related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Both federal cases were pursued through 2024 and became flashpoints in the presidential campaign, with Trump and his allies repeatedly characterizing them as politically coordinated rather than legally merited.

"Holding him accountable is not a threat to law enforcement; it is consistent with the rule of law," Davis wrote, referring to his hypothetical violent officer. "The same applies to rogue prosecutors like Smith."

Davis further claimed: "He tried and failed to alter the outcome of the 2024 presidential election by prosecuting President Trump across two jurisdictions on two absurd indictments."

"It is inconceivable how holding him legally accountable for that conduct would threaten the Justice Department," Davis added.

The column's framing — arguing that accountability for rogue actors strengthens rather than undermines institutional legitimacy — mirrors language long used by criminal justice reform advocates, a comparison Davis did not appear to intend. The rhetorical overlap underscores how aggressively the "accountability" frame has migrated across the political spectrum: phrases once associated primarily with police-reform movements now appear routinely in partisan arguments about prosecutors, investigators, and the Justice Department itself.