Vice President JD Vance’s visit to North Carolina on September 24, 2025, was anything but routine. What began as a discussion about public safety quickly morphed into a heated national debate over political violence, rhetoric, and responsibility, with California Governor Gavin Newsom and Vance trading barbs that lit up social media and the airwaves.
Vance, making his first official trip to North Carolina since taking office, had initially planned to focus on concerns around public safety, particularly in the wake of the fatal stabbing of a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee on Charlotte’s light rail last month, according to reporting from the North Carolina opinion team. But the vice president soon shifted his attention to the broader issue of political violence, referencing two recent and highly charged incidents: the shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and a shooting at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Dallas earlier that same day.
The Dallas shooting, as detailed by both local authorities and the FBI, left an immigrant detainee dead and two others wounded. No ICE agents were harmed. FBI Director Kash Patel released a photo on X (formerly Twitter) showing ammunition from the scene, one round inscribed with the phrase "anti-ICE," underscoring the targeted nature of the attack. The FBI classified the incident as an "act of targeted violence."
In remarks delivered in Concord, North Carolina, and widely circulated by media outlets, Vance did not mince words about whom he held responsible. “When Democrats like Gavin Newsom say these people are part of an authoritarian government, when the left-wing media lies about what they’re doing and who they’re arresting and the actual job of law enforcement, what they’re doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence,” Vance said. “If your political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement, you can go straight to hell, and you have no place in the political conversation in the United States.”
Vance’s comments, especially his direct invocation of Newsom, ignited a firestorm. Newsom responded swiftly and with characteristic wit on X: “I will not be going ‘straight to hell’ today. Though when I watch you speak I certainly feel like I’m already there.” Newsom’s press office joined in, ribbing Vance over his own past remarks. “According to JD Vance, JD Vance is going to hell because JD Vance compared Trump to Hitler!” the press office posted, referencing Vance’s previous comparison of Donald Trump to “America’s Hitler” in private conversations.
Vance’s speech wasn’t limited to criticisms of Newsom. He also urged Americans to stop using the word “Nazi” as an insult, saying, “If you want to stop political violence, stop telling your supporters that everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi. If you want to stop political violence, look in the mirror.” He asserted that political violence in America was “out of control,” and placed the blame squarely at the feet of Democratic leaders, saying that addressing the issue “starts at the very top of the Democratic Party.”
But as Paige Masten, deputy opinion editor for the North Carolina opinion team, pointed out in a September 25 article, Vance’s framing of political violence as a predominantly left-wing problem ignores a host of violent incidents targeting Democrats in recent years. Masten cited several examples: a Minnesota man killed a Democratic state lawmaker and her husband in June 2025 and seriously injured another lawmaker and his wife; in April, the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion was set on fire while Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro and his family were inside; and in 2022, an assailant broke into former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and brutally attacked her husband. The 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was also highlighted as a high-profile case of political violence targeting Democrats.
“The truth is that political violence does happen on both sides, and to pretend otherwise is irresponsible,” Masten wrote. She argued that Vance’s rhetoric, far from unifying, only deepens divisions: “It perpetuates more division at a time when unity is what’s most needed. It’s astoundingly hypocritical to criticize your opponents for supposedly divisive rhetoric when you’re perhaps even more guilty of it yourself.”
Vance, for his part, maintained that recent political violence “is not a ‘both sides’ problem,” stating, “It is primarily on one side of the political aisle.” Yet, as critics quickly noted, this assertion glosses over the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, resulting in the death of one officer, injuries to dozens more, and four subsequent suicides among law enforcement. Former President Trump, whom Vance now serves, has repeatedly downplayed the attack, referring to the rioters as “great people” and issuing pardons or commutations to many involved.
The charged rhetoric from both Vance and Trump has drawn scrutiny. Vance has himself been criticized for divisive language, including calling Vice President Kamala Harris “trash,” disparaging childless voters, and belittling political opponents. Trump, meanwhile, frequently labels his adversaries as fascists and in 2024 described Democrats as running a “Gestapo administration,” according to reporting from North Carolina and national outlets.
Despite Vance’s claims, most mainstream Democrats have publicly denounced political violence, including the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Those on the left who have celebrated or encouraged violence remain a small minority, and the majority of Democratic leaders have consistently called for peace and restraint.
The Dallas shooting, which remains under FBI investigation, has become a flashpoint in the debate over the consequences of political rhetoric. The ammunition inscribed with “anti-ICE” found at the scene seemed to confirm the shooter’s intent, but authorities have yet to release further details about the suspect or motivations beyond the anti-ICE messaging.
As the nation grapples with a string of high-profile political attacks—on both sides of the aisle—calls for de-escalation and responsible speech have grown louder. Yet, as the exchange between Vance and Newsom demonstrates, the temptation to assign blame and score political points remains strong, even in moments of tragedy. For many Americans, the spectacle is both exhausting and deeply troubling, raising urgent questions about where the line between passionate advocacy and dangerous incitement truly lies.
With investigations ongoing and the rhetoric showing little sign of cooling, the country finds itself at a crossroads, searching for leadership that can bridge divides rather than deepen them. Whether that leadership will emerge from the current crop of national figures remains, as ever, an open question.