How Trump’s ‘Rot in Hell’ Post Escalated His Feud With Colorado Gov. Jared Polis

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

  • Donald Trump reignited a long-running feud with Colorado Gov. Jared Polis by posting that Polis and others should “rot in hell” over the case of former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters.
  • Tina Peters is serving a state prison sentence for a 2020 election data breach, and Colorado officials have refused to transfer her to a federal facility despite federal requests.
  • Trump issued a symbolic “pardon” for Peters, but it has no legal effect because her conviction is under state law, not federal law.
  • Polis has responded by attacking Trump’s policy record on affordability, tariffs, and health care, while striking a more measured public tone.
  • The case is now at the Colorado Court of Appeals, where Peters’ lawyers argue Trump’s pardon strips the court of jurisdiction, setting up a closely watched legal fight.

Table of Contents

Trump–Polis feud reignites over Tina Peters

As 2025 closed, President Donald Trump used his Truth Social platform to launch one of his most aggressive attacks yet on Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis. In an early Wednesday post, Trump blasted Polis and a local Republican district attorney as “scumbag” and “disgusting RINO,” ending with the explosive line: “May they rot in Hell. FREE TINA PETTERS!”

At the center of the clash is Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk convicted of state crimes tied to a 2020 election data breach. Trump cast Peters as a victim punished for trying to expose what he continues to describe as “massive voter fraud” in Colorado, even as courts and election officials dispute those claims.

The dispute has become a vivid example of how national election denial narratives are colliding with state-level rule of law, especially in closely watched swing states like Colorado.

Who is Tina Peters and why her case matters

Peters, now 73 and described in the article as ill, is serving a nine-year state prison sentence in a Colorado maximum-security facility. She was convicted for her role in a breach of Mesa County’s voting system data following the 2020 election. Colorado officials have framed her case as a clear-cut attack on election security, while some on the right have elevated her as a symbol of resistance to what they claim are flawed election systems.

The federal government reportedly requested that Peters be moved to a federal prison, but Colorado officials refused. That refusal is a flashpoint in Trump’s criticism: he argues Peters is being unfairly treated under a state system he portrays as dominated by Democrats and vulnerable to fraud.

Trump’s pardon power and its limits in this case

In early December, Trump declared that he had “pardoned” Tina Peters. Legally, though, presidential pardons only affect federal crimes. Because Peters was convicted under Colorado state law, most legal experts agree that Trump’s action is symbolic rather than binding.

Peters’ attorneys have tried to leverage the symbolism into a legal strategy. In a motion to the Colorado Court of Appeals, they argue that Trump’s Dec. 5 pardon means the court “no longer has jurisdiction” over her case. They cite President George Washington’s 1795 pardons after the Whiskey Rebellion, when some individuals had both state and federal exposure, and ask the court to release Peters from prison.

Colorado’s appeals judges have not accepted that premise outright. The court has scheduled oral arguments in Peters’ appeal for Jan. 14 and allowed the state attorney general’s office, which is defending the conviction, to respond to the pardon argument by Jan. 8.

How Jared Polis is framing his response

While Trump’s language is personal and inflammatory, Polis has chosen a measured, policy-focused tone. In an email to Colorado Politics, he responded:

“I hope the President’s resolution this year is to spend less time online talking about me and more on making America more affordable by stopping his disastrous tariffs and fixing rising health care costs… I wish all Americans, including the President and all the wonderful people across the political spectrum, a happy, healthy and productive New Year.”

Polis consistently redirects the conversation toward economic issues—tariffs, health care, and affordability—rather than trading insults. Earlier, when Trump called him a “sleazebag” for refusing to release Peters, Polis replied that national leaders should be focused on “making life better for people and making life more affordable.”

For politically engaged readers, this contrast offers a useful lens:

  • Trump’s strategy: personalize the conflict, rally his base around election grievances, and portray state officials as corrupt or weak.
  • Polis’s strategy: avoid direct escalation, emphasize kitchen-table policy issues, and present himself as the steady, pragmatic actor.

The next formal step is in the courts. The Colorado Court of Appeals will hear arguments in mid-January on Peters’ underlying conviction and the impact, if any, of Trump’s so-called pardon. Regardless of the legal outcome, the case will likely remain a political lightning rod in Colorado, especially as the state heads toward a consequential 2026 election cycle with an open governor’s seat and hotly contested congressional races.

For voters and observers, this case highlights several broader themes:

  • The boundary between state and federal power, particularly around criminal justice and pardons.
  • Ongoing narratives of election denial and their impact on local officials and institutions.
  • How national political figures use state-level legal cases to mobilize supporters and test new messaging.

How readers can dig deeper into Colorado politics

If you follow this story, you may also be interested in how it fits into the broader landscape of Colorado’s shifting politics. Consider exploring:

  • Coverage of congressional races in Colorado’s 8th District, a seat described as one of the most vulnerable and potentially decisive in the fight for control of Congress.
  • Profiles of emerging candidates for governor in 2026, including contenders from both parties who will inherit this tense state–federal dynamic.
  • Analysis pieces on election security, mail-in voting, and disinformation in Colorado to better understand claims made by figures on all sides.

To personalize your learning, ask yourself:

  • How important is tone and leadership style when evaluating candidates who clash this publicly?
  • What sources do you trust on matters of election integrity, and why?
  • Which policy areas—such as water, affordability, health care, or public safety—most shape your view of Colorado’s leaders?

By following the ongoing developments in the Peters case and the Trump–Polis feud, readers can gain a sharper understanding of how legal battles, rhetoric, and policy debates intersect in today’s high-stakes political climate.

Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/12/31/rot-in-hell-trump-post-reignites-feud-with-colorado-gov-jared-polis-over-tina-peters/