After what appears to have been a third attempt to assassinate President Trump and potentially members of his cabinet it is time to ask the question, why are these acts of violence occurring. How much responsibility should be placed on the Liberal media for the political violence in our country? This is a deeply important question that touches on free speech and media responsibility. This question cuts to the heart of whether words have consequences, and the evidence in my opinion is damning for the liberal media establishment. It is important what we actually know about the attackers, the media environment that preceded their actions, and the direct connections between rhetoric and violence. Let’s take a look at the attempts on President Trump’s life.
Attempt #1: Thomas Matthew Crooks—Butler, Pennsylvania (July 13, 2024) A 20-year-old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, opened fire at a Trump rally, striking Trump in the right ear, killing one spectator (Corey Comperatore), and critically wounding two others. The Secret Service killed Crooks within seconds.
The FBI investigation concluded in November 2025 and found that Crooks acted alone with “no clear motive identified.” Wikipedia His political background was mixed. He donated $15 to a Democratic-aligned group at 17, then registered as a Republican at 18. FBI deputy director Paul Abbate described Crooks’s online activity as antisemitic, anti-immigrant, extreme, and espousing political violence. Wikipedia.
Attempt #2: Ryan Wesley Routh—West Palm Beach, Florida (September 15, 2024) Routh camped outside Trump International Golf Club for nearly 12 hours with a loaded SKS-style rifle with scope, positioning himself 300-500 yards from where Trump was playing. A Secret Service agent spotted the rifle barrel and fired, causing Routh to flee. He was captured on I-95.
This is where the media connection becomes most direct and undeniable: Routh compared himself to Thomas Matthew Crooks because they were both “ready to die for freedom and democracy.” He repeatedly raised the prospect of another civil war.. One day before the 2024 election, Routh sent a letter stating that if Trump wins the election, it will mark “the end of Democracy and the beginning of a Civil War” and that Trump “will not let go of the power given to him.”
Routh called Trump a “dictator,” directly echoing the rhetoric of Democrats and the media. Wikipedia He also wrote that the country must “limit all Presidential power before Trump seizes our country.” Wikipedia His daughter’s reaction was equally revealing: “Our democracy is crumbling right in front of our eyes, and no one’s doing anything about it. And my dad tried to bring awareness to that.” His son Oran’s immediate reaction upon hearing his father tried to kill Trump: he “hates Trump like every reasonable person does.”
Ongoing Plots and the Latest Attempt: Beyond the two major attempts and the most current at the White House Correspondents Dinner, the threat landscape is unprecedented. No modern president has ever faced this many threats. Axios These include Iranian IRGC-directed murder-for-hire plots (Asif Merchant arrested July 12, 2024—the day before the Butler shooting; Farhad Shakeri charged November 2024; both convicted in 2026). A 21-year-old who brought a shotgun and gas canister to Mar-a-Lago (February 2025). Shawn Monper, arrested in Butler, Pennsylvania the same city as the first assassination attempt and who had been buying guns and ammunition while posting assassination threats on social media (April 2025). Than there was A woman arrested near the White House who had posted intent to “sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him” and described Trump as a “terrorist” (August 2025)
The Media’s “Threat to Democracy” Campaign: Here’s where the evidence of media responsibility becomes impossible to ignore. For nearly a decade, the liberal media establishment conducted what can only be described as a sustained dehumanization campaign against Donald Trump. The language escalated steadily in a time line. 2016-2020: Trump portrayed as racist, sexist, xenophobic, and unfit for office. 2020-2021: After January 6, rhetoric escalated to “insurrectionist,” “authoritarian,” and “would-be dictator” 2022-2024: The “threat to democracy” framing became the central narrative of virtually every liberal news outlet, every day, for years.
Even Biden himself repeatedly called Trump “a threat to democracy” and specifically stated Trump “threatens the very foundations of our republic.” The White House press secretary was directly asked after the second assassination attempt whether Biden would stop using this language. Jean-Pierre suggested he would not, saying he had a responsibility to “be honest with the American people.” The intolerable disparaging rhetoric continued as another Democratic congressman said Trump should be “eliminated” which he later apologized for, saying he meant defeated electorally. But the word was already out there. The Trump campaign documented over 50 specific quotes from Democratic leaders and allied media figures characterizing Trump as a threat that must be “stopped at all costs.”
The Direct Linkage: Routh’s Own Words: Ryan Routh didn’t come to his conclusions in a vacuum. His language “threat to democracy,” “dictator,” “civil war,” “seize our country” is word-for-word the language that had been pumped into the American media ecosystem for years by the liberal press and Democratic politicians.
Glenn Beck of Blaze Media made the connection explicit: “The media has been peddling this dangerous rhetoric depicting Trump as a dictator and an imminent threat to democracy. Ryan Routh was the second person to be tipped over the edge by this propaganda, convinced that he would be saving democracy by taking out Trump.” Beck noted that Routh’s own son’s reaction “he hates Trump like every reasonable person does” reveals “the dangerous game our political elites are playing.”
JD Vance put it directly: “I think that it’s time to say to the Democrats, to the media, to everybody that has been attacking this man and trying to censor this man for going on 10 years, cut it out or you’re going to get somebody killed.” At a Georgia Faith & Freedom Victory Dinner, Vance argued that Democrats cannot call Trump a “threat to democracy” and “a fascist” and expect that violence would not follow.
The Stochastic Terrorism Framework: There’s a concept in security studies called “stochastic terrorism” which is the use of mass communication to incite random acts of violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. I call it political propaganda and the mechanism works like this:. A leader or media outlet demonizes a target calling them an existential threat, a dictator, a danger to the nation. The message is repeated thousands of times across multiple platforms, day after day, for years. The vast majority of the audience absorbs the message passively they vote, they argue, they post online. But a small percentage the unstable, the ideological, the mentally ill interpret the message as a call to action. If this person is truly a “threat to democracy” and an existential danger to the nation, then stopping him by any means necessary becomes not just justified but heroic. Violence becomes statistically inevitable even though no single broadcast or article directly called for it
The liberal media’s decade-long characterization of Trump as an existential threat to American democracy operated exactly this way. You don’t have to explicitly say “someone should shoot him” when you spend years telling millions of people that he’s the most dangerous person in the world who will destroy democracy, imprison his opponents, and establish authoritarian rule. Unstable individuals will eventually draw the logical conclusion from that premise.
What Makes This Different from Normal Political Rhetoric: While political opponents have always criticized each other harshly there’s a qualitative difference between “My opponent’s policies are wrong” (legitimate disagreement) “My opponent is corrupt” (accusation requiring evidence) “My opponent is an existential threat to democracy who must be stopped at all costs” (language that implies extraordinary action is justified)
The liberal media didn’t just criticize Trump’s policies or character. They constructed a narrative in which Trump was presented as a civilizational threat equivalent to Hitler, Mussolini, and authoritarians who historically were stopped only by force. When you frame someone as the next Hitler for years on end, you are implicitly telling your audience that the people who tried to stop Hitler were heroes.
Consider the specific language used: “Threat to democracy” implies democracy itself will end if he’s not stopped – “Fascist” invokes the historical precedent of violent resistance “Dictator” implies he will seize permanent power – “Must be stopped at all costs” the phrase “at all costs” explicitly includes violence – “End of democracy” suggests existential stakes justifying extraordinary measures. Routh used almost identical language in his own writings. He didn’t invent it. He absorbed it from the media environment.
The Counterargument And Why It Falls Short: The liberal media’s defense is typically: “Trump uses inflammatory rhetoric too, so both sides are responsible. “There’s truth to the fact that Trump uses aggressive language. But as Vance pointed out, “What is one-sided is that our guy is the one who keeps getting shot at.” The asymmetry is important. The question isn’t whether political rhetoric in general is heated as it obviously is on both sides. The question is whether one side’s specific rhetoric contributed to the specific assassination attempts on one specific person. And the evidence for that is overwhelming.
Routh used the exact “threat to democracy” language that the media had been pumping for years. He explicitly framed his assassination attempt as “saving democracy” – His family members echoed mainstream liberal media talking points to justify his actions. The “threat to democracy” framing was repeated thousands of times by CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and virtually every liberal outlet over a period of years. Why have no comparable assassination attempts been made against Biden, Harris, or other Democratic leaders despite Trump’s rhetoric about them?
The liberal media bears significant responsibility for creating an environment in which political assassination became thinkable. When you tell millions of Americans every single day for years that one man is an existential threat to their freedom, their democracy, and their way of life, you are lighting matches in a room full of gasoline. You may not intend for the explosion, but you are responsible for creating the conditions that made it inevitable.
Specifically: CNN, MSNBC, and allied outlets relentlessly promoted the “threat to democracy” narrative without any acknowledgment that such language could radicalize unstable individuals
Biden and Harris personally used language characterizing Trump as an existential threat, and refused to stop even after two assassination attempts. Democratic politicians used eliminationist language (“eliminated”) and only walked it back after public outcry. Social media platforms amplified the most extreme versions of this rhetoric. While it was Hollywood and entertainment media that normalized violence against Trump through mock assassination scenes, severed head photos (Kathy Griffin), and assassination-themed plays
What the liberal media did to Trump is not without precedent. Before the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Democratic newspapers portrayed him as a tyrant, a dictator, and a destroyer of the Constitution. Before the assassination of JFK, right-wing publications in Dallas portrayed him as a traitor and communist sympathizer. Before the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, right-wing Israeli media portrayed him as a traitor to the Jewish people. In every case, sustained dehumanization and demonization of a political figure by media outlets preceded assassination. In every case, the media claimed they bore no responsibility. And in every case, history judged them harshly.
In my opinion, responsibility for these assassination attempts lies with the liberal media. While they didn’t pull the trigger, they spent years loading the gun, pointing it at the target, and telling millions of Americans that the safety of their democracy depended on someone pulling the trigger. When unstable individuals finally acted on that message using the media’s own language to justify their actions, the media’s response was to blame Trump for his own near-assassination. The media’s responsibility isn’t criminal in a legal sense, and the First Amendment protects even reckless speech. But it is a moral responsibility of the highest order and until the media establishment acknowledges it, the danger will continue as Saturday nights shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner tragically demonstrated.
We not only get the Government We Deserve, but We also get the Media We Deserve: Wake up America before it is too late, and this horrible rhetoric destroys our country from the inside out.
