A common phrase in politics is “the optics are bad.” It means a situation can create an unfavorable moment even if there is no intentional wrongdoing.
That is the concern I felt after watching President Donald Trump’s Oct. 15 Rose Garden event, where he called for the death penalty for people who murder firefighters. Firefighters deserve protection from anyone who would attack them while they are trying to save a life. So do the EMTs and paramedics working beside them.
For EMS, the troubling part was the public picture of the gathering: While national fire and law enforcement organizations were clearly identified, national EMS organizations were missing from the reported lineup. An event honoring first responders should make EMS representation visible.
To be precise, Trump did acknowledge paramedics and EMTs in his remarks. Fire organizations also represent many professionals who provide emergency medical care.
Available reporting does not establish the full invitation list or prove that an EMS organization was deliberately excluded. But mentioning EMS and giving its national leadership a visible place in the conversation are different things. And for a profession still fighting to be recognized as an equal public safety partner, that distinction can land as an insult, even without an intended slight.
The standard should be the same under any president. Support for Trump, opposition to Trump and opinions about capital punishment do not determine whether EMS deserves representation. A reader can hold any of those views and still expect a national first responder gathering to include the people who speak for EMS.
Fire and EMS share this risk
Firefighters know how quickly a medical call can turn dangerous. Many carry both credentials. Their colleagues in municipal, county, hospital, nonprofit, private and volunteer EMS face the same uncertainty when they approach a patient.
Graham Hoffman’s death makes the overlap painfully clear. The 29-year-old Kansas City firefighter/paramedic was fatally stabbed during an ambulance transport on April 27, 2025. He was providing patient care when he was attacked.
Hoffman’s fire service affiliation and EMS work belong together in the account of his sacrifice. A paramedic performing the same work for a separate ambulance service deserves the same concern.
The violence has continued. On July 8, 2026, a Springfield, Ohio, firefighter/paramedic was stabbed in the back during transport for a court-ordered mental health evaluation. The medic survived. In May, gunfire struck an FDNY ambulance in the Bronx, shattering its windows while two EMTs were nearby. Neither EMT was physically injured. The report does not establish that the crew was the intended target, but the danger they faced was real nonetheless.
These incidents expose a problem that crosses agency boundaries. A fire department patch cannot make patient care safe. Neither can an ambulance service logo. Our advocacy should cross those boundaries, too.
Put protection into policy
There is already a bipartisan proposal that recognizes this shared responsibility.
The Graham-Hoffman Act, S. 2278, introduced by Sens. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Maggie Hassan, (D-N.H.) proposes federal penalties for specified on-duty assaults causing serious bodily injury, or attempts to commit them, subject to federal jurisdiction and prosecution requirements. Its definition of first responder expressly includes ambulance and rescue personnel, along with firefighters and law enforcement officers.
Prevention deserves the same attention. H.R. 2531, the proposed Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, would require a federal workplace violence prevention standard and plans from covered employers. Its text includes emergency services and transport, including services provided by firefighters and emergency responders. It addresses risk assessment, training, incident reporting and follow-up after violence.
Criminal accountability and prevention serve different needs. A threat of punishment after an attack does not replace the work of recognizing hazards before one. Crews need dispatch information, workable procedures for requesting police assistance, training for violent encounters and leaders who take assault reports seriously.
National EMS leaders bring that operational experience to the table. Their participation can help turn a broad promise of support into protections that fit the work.
The greatest insult
The recognition gap between EMS and other public safety services does not stop at the guest list or the policy table. It extends to one of the most important honors a profession can give: remembering those who died in service.
The fire service has the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Law enforcement has the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. Both provide permanent places where families and colleagues can honor those who died in service. And yet, in our nation’s capital, where memorials are plenty, EMS has to meet in a hotel to honor its fallen every year. That’s right, EMS has a National EMS Memorial Service, a memorial procession and dedicated volunteers who honor its fallen, but there is still no permanent national memorial, despite years of advocacy from EMS leaders.
This effort also crosses party lines. Trump signed the memorial authorization in 2018. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have supported extending the authorization so the project can move forward. That history makes the point: Recognizing EMS is a responsibility that can unite people with different politics.
A permanent memorial gives families a place to return. Visible national representation gives the living a voice in decisions about their safety. EMS deserves both.
Make the next invitation count
Fire leaders can help by asking a simple question when national first responder events are planned: Who is representing EMS?
Organizations such as the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the American Ambulance Association and the International Association of EMS Chiefs should have a visible role alongside fire and law enforcement partners. EMS leaders, in turn, should bring a coordinated agenda on violence prevention, legislation and recognition for the fallen.
Firefighters do not lose recognition when a paramedic receives it. EMS gains nothing by diminishing the dangers firefighters face. Our credibility grows when we insist that the same concern extend to every crew answering the call.
At the next national gathering, EMS professionals should be able to see who is speaking for them. They should not have to assume someone else has it covered.
