Ex-college athlete-turned conservative blogger says Dem rhetoric fuels 'permission structure for violence'

A former college athlete-turned-conservative content creator warned that the United States is entering dangerous territory, accusing the left of creating a 'permission structure for violence.' Jeffery Mead, who runs Mead Digital Media and a Substack, told Fox News Digital in an interview on Tuesday that rhetoric from Democrats and their allies has consequences and could spur violence, including against political opponents.

Mead is a 2017 University of Oklahoma graduate who played wide receiver on the football team. He has built a substantial audience, with roughly 500,000 followers on X and 1.1 million on TikTok, by posting reactions to politics and current events. He said the left's rhetoric does not match its actions, arguing that politicians publicly condemn violence while not acknowledging what led to it, and that the tone on the left has become increasingly extreme.

Mead referenced the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old co-founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, who was shot and killed on Sept. 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University during his American Comeback Tour. Kirk had quickly become a defining influence in the conservative movement and was described as a crucial figure in President Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory. Mead recently shared a video on X condemning the assassination and laying blame on the rhetoric of Democrats.

He argued the incident fits a historical pattern he outlined, saying the pattern begins with labeling opponents as evil, which can lead to a sense that normal rules no longer apply to them, and then to excuses or celebrations of violence. Mead pointed to elements he described as dehumanizing, including the shooter reportedly engraving provocative phrases on his bullet and referencing anti-fascist symbols to signal intent. He added that when political discourse treats opponents as dangerous or illegitimate, it can erode norms for conduct and open space for violence.

"There's a reason that the shooter had, you know, 'Hey, fascist catch' engraved on the bullet," Mead told Fox News Digital. "There's a reason he had an anti-fascist song, Bella Ciao, engraved in the bullet. It's because he had internalized the left's extreme ideology about the right."

So, Mead said, the rhetoric of the left contributes to a dehumanizing environment in which violence can be treated as a legitimate response to political disagreement. He argued that the right must unapologetically call out this rhetoric and, importantly, do so in a way that emphasizes principled disagreement rather than mirroring the left’s tone. "The right has to become louder and have better arguments than the left, and they have to make that case throughout the country," he said.

The assassination prompted reactions from lawmakers who cautioned that violent language can precede violent acts. A memorial and prayer vigil was held in the aftermath, underscoring the broader concern about a toxic political climate fueling real-world harm. At the same time, Kirk’s supporters and fellow conservatives stressed the need for robust, peaceful advocacy to push back against what they view as leftist overreach in public debate.

Kirk, who co-founded Turning Point USA in 2012 as a teenager with encouragement from Tea Party activist Bill Montgomery, was described as a rising force within the movement. In the wake of his death, observers noted that his influence had helped sharpen the political dialogue surrounding issues like domestic policy, free speech, and political activism. Mead’s remarks tie those dynamics to a wider conversation about rhetoric, violence, and accountability in contemporary U.S. politics.

The incident has intensified debate about whether political opponents should be labeled as enemies and what standards should govern public discourse during an era of highly polarized views. Mead argues that the right needs to respond with clearer, louder messages that condemn violence while continuing to advocate for policy and principle-based disagreement, rather than adopting a confrontational posture that mirrors the rhetoric he says has fueled the problem.

As the country continues to grapple with the consequences of heated rhetoric, lawmakers, analysts, and activists are likely to revisit the basic question Mead raises: how to preserve a functioning democratic dialogue in an environment where the metaphor of war can bleed into real-world violence. The ongoing discussion will test whether political engagement can remain civil while remaining passionate and persistent in pursuing a preferred set of policies.

The broader topic of US politics, including how rhetoric shapes behavior and policy, remains central to the public conversation. Mead’s critique highlights a real tension in modern political life: the desire to win hearts and votes through uncompromising messaging, paired with a norm that violence has no place in the political arena. His call for sharper, more persuasive argumentation aims to recalibrate the stakes of political competition toward persuasion rather than intimidation.