Kai Schwemmer: Faith, Free Speech & the Future of Conservatism | PoliticIt

Utah Senator John Johnson welcomes Kai Schwemmer to the PoliticIt Podcast for a conversation about faith, political expression, and the next generation of conservative leadership.

Schwemmer’s appointment as political director of College Republicans of America drew scrutiny over past remarks and political associations. Against that backdrop, this episode offers an opportunity to hear his perspective and consider the broader questions surrounding free speech, personal growth, public accountability, and young people’s role in shaping the Republican Party.

Conservative politics on a college campus can start with something as simple as a folding table and a microphone. What happens next is rarely predictable. One student wants a serious discussion about immigration. Another wants to challenge a moral claim about abortion. Someone else offers an insult instead of an argument.

PoliticIt Radio – Stand Your Ground

The real test is not whether you can speak louder. It is whether you can stay composed, explain what you believe, and recognize the difference between disagreement and intimidation.

That same judgment matters away from campus, too. It matters when voters report missing ballots, when a young person’s signature causes an election problem, and when a public appointment becomes a controversy over old political comments.

Kai Schwemmer’s experiences bring those questions together. His work with the Utah Federation of College Republicans, College Republicans of America, campus debate events, and the Utah County Clerk’s Office reflects several sides of young conservative leadership. There is the public argument, the practical work, the religious conviction, and the personal discipline needed to keep going.

What interested me most was how often the conversation came back to a basic distinction: being politically committed does not eliminate the need to be careful, responsible, and willing to engage.

Taking Conservative Arguments onto College Campuses

As vice chair of the Utah Federation of College Republicans, Kai works with an organization whose reach extends across college chapters statewide. His role as political director for College Republicans of America takes that involvement beyond Utah.

He has also joined Turning Point USA’s Pick Up the Mic Tour as a speaker. His plans included campus appearances in Minnesota and Michigan, with a format built around direct debate rather than a conventional speech followed by a few questions.

The setup is straightforward. Put up a canopy, set out a table, provide a microphone, and invite students to bring forward the subjects they care about. The speakers then offer a conservative response.

There is something useful about that simplicity. Students do not have to agree with the organizers to participate. In fact, disagreement is the point. A campus debate table creates an opportunity to put competing arguments in the same place and see whether the people making them can defend their positions.

Kai described Turning Point’s effort as a broader project to develop a network of debaters around the country. His estimate was that the organization was trying to put more than 30 speakers into that work, drawing from established commentators, local field representatives, and people somewhere between those categories.

For him, Charlie Kirk’s example involved more than quick responses or a sharp command of an issue. It also involved an extraordinary workload. Kai emphasized Kirk’s willingness to travel constantly and sometimes participate in two events in a day.

That is an important organizational point. A national campus presence cannot depend entirely on one individual’s schedule. It requires developing people who can make the arguments, handle difficult exchanges, and show up in different parts of the country.

What a Debate Table Actually Requires

Kai had already participated in similar events in Utah with Reawaken USA, including stops at the University of Utah and Utah State University.

At those events, the table typically had one or two speakers with microphones. Students approached a microphone in front of them, and the conversation developed around the topics being debated. When two speakers were present, they could alternate responses and keep the discussion moving.

But a simple arrangement does not mean an easy assignment. Some students stayed for extended exchanges. Others made a short argument and moved on. Still others approached only to swear at the speakers.

Those are very different situations, even though they happen at the same table. A person prepared to debate deserves an answer to the argument. A person trying to provoke a reaction presents a different challenge. The speaker has to decide, often immediately, what kind of exchange is possible.

That is where preparation and temperament become just as important as political knowledge.

Free Speech Needs Room for Disagreement, Not Threats

One of Kai’s accounts illustrated why he now treats threatening behavior more seriously.

He described a student approaching a Utah campus event, making a gesture that mimicked firing a rifle, and invoking Charlie Kirk’s assassination as something that should happen to the speakers. According to Kai’s account, police officers providing security promptly arrested the student.

The incident received local coverage and some national attention, he said. He also recalled the student resisting a request for identification and invoking the Fifth Amendment during the exchange with officers.

That part of the story became a moment of humor in our conversation, but the underlying issue was not funny. The central concern was a gesture and statement that Kai understood as a threat of political violence.

His own response to this kind of behavior has changed. Previously, he said, he was more inclined to dismiss it as thoughtless conduct by young people who did not appreciate what they were saying. After Kirk’s assassination, he felt that dismissiveness was no longer adequate.

His position is that people need to understand immediately that invoking violence against political opponents is unacceptable. He sees it as both a security concern and a failure of empathy.

There is a clear distinction here. A student can strongly oppose a conservative position, challenge the speaker’s reasoning, or argue that a proposed policy is wrong. None of that requires suggesting that the speaker should be killed.

A serious culture of political debate must preserve disagreement while refusing to normalize intimidation. Without that distinction, the microphone stops being an invitation to argue and starts becoming an opportunity to frighten people out of participating.

For campus organizers, that is not an abstract concern. Kai’s account involved officers already present to provide security. The argument about free speech was happening alongside the practical responsibility to keep the event safe.

Sometimes the Best Debate Response Is to Stay Quiet

Kai’s experience with debate began well before his national political work. He participated throughout high school and served as varsity debate captain at Highland High School in Salt Lake City.

He was modest about the title, but the experience helps explain his approach. He has spent enough time in arguments to know that not every exchange benefits from an immediate interruption.

The energy a student brings to the table can determine the direction of the conversation. Some people ask pointed questions but remain willing to listen. Others yell, scream, or use labels in place of a developed case.

In the second situation, Kai sometimes lets the person continue. His reasoning is that a speaker who loses control may make the weakness of the exchange apparent without much help from the other side.

There is a temptation in politics to answer every accusation instantly. Silence can feel like surrender. But if someone is making a confused or obviously excessive case, interrupting may only create a shouting match that obscures what was wrong with the argument.

Letting the person finish gives the exchange room to reveal itself. It also gives the respondent an opportunity to remain collected.

That does not mean Kai generally avoids answering. He said that most of the time he does respond and makes the conservative case. The point is not to replace debate with silence. It is to recognize when another sentence will help and when it will merely add noise.

His approach comes down to a few practical habits:

• Let people state their position. An interruption is not automatically a rebuttal.
• Keep your composure. Someone else’s anger does not require you to match it.
• Answer the substantive claim. When there is an argument to address, make your case.
• Recognize provocation. Some exchanges are aimed at producing a reaction rather than testing an idea.

That is a useful lesson for anyone entering public life. Being forceful and being frantic are not the same thing.

The Issues Kai Wants to Debate

Immigration is the subject Kai most readily identifies with his political work. He described it as his strongest area and, in his judgment, the most pressing issue facing the United States.

His other preferred subjects include abortion, questions involving transgender identity and children, the Christian origins of the United States, the Founding Fathers, and gun violence.

These are not small disagreements over administrative details. Several involve fundamental moral claims. On abortion, for example, Kai approaches the argument from a strongly pro-life position and treats it as a question about the taking of human life.

His concerns about transgender issues center on children and schools. His interest in America’s Christian origins brings religious belief and historical interpretation into the discussion.

Those are his positions and priorities, not conclusions established simply by holding a debate. The purpose of the table is to give students a chance to challenge them and require the speakers to explain their reasoning.

The Eagle Mountain Ballot Problem: Following the Pattern

Campus arguments are one part of political involvement. Election administration is another, and it involves a very different kind of responsibility.

Kai described becoming involved in reports of missing Republican primary ballots in Eagle Mountain. The initial message came from Gracie, a young woman writing for BYU’s Cougar Chronicle.

She told him that her precinct chair had spoken with other precinct members and that a number of people had not received their ballots.

At first, there were ordinary possibilities to consider. A ballot can be misplaced. Someone else in the household can move it. A voter can lose track of mail, especially during a primary election.

One or two reports do not, by themselves, establish a widespread delivery failure. But the information eventually pointed to something more concentrated: two specific Eagle Mountain precincts where ballot nonreceipt appeared to be a substantial problem.

Kai brought the reports to Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson. In Kai’s account, Davidson wanted to determine whether the complaints represented a few isolated cases or a larger issue.

He asked Kai to compile the information he had received. Davidson then contacted every active registered Republican in the relevant investigation, since the election involved a Republican primary, and created a map of reported ballot delivery.

The map mattered. Kai described a conspicuous gap over the affected part of Eagle Mountain. Rather than scattered reports across a broad area, there was a localized pattern involving hundreds of voters.

That difference changed the question. The issue was no longer simply whether several individuals had lost their envelopes. It was whether something had gone wrong in delivery across a defined area.

Mail Preview Images Added Another Clue

Some residents had another piece of information: images from a mail preview service showing ballots expected to arrive. Those ballots, they reported, never reached their homes.

That helped distinguish the complaints from a situation in which no ballot had been generated or entered the mail stream at all. The images did not answer every question about what happened afterward, but they gave the investigation a more specific starting point.

Kai said news organizations, including KUTV, had been contacted about the problem roughly a month before the charging announcement discussed in our conversation. At that earlier stage, he said, the request was for an investigation because the cause remained unknown.

He reported that the Department of Justice had subsequently charged an individual in connection with the missing ballots. A charge is not a conviction, and Kai did not claim to know all the investigative details. In fact, he said Davidson learned of the announcement when the article appeared.

The useful lesson is in the process:

1. Take reports from voters seriously.
2. Compile the information rather than relying on impressions.
3. Determine whether the problem is scattered or geographically concentrated.
4. Compare reports with available delivery information.
5. Pursue an investigation without pretending the cause is already established.

Election confidence depends on following evidence, including evidence that something has gone wrong. The Eagle Mountain account shows why a local complaint can deserve more attention than it initially receives.

Why Young Voters Can Run into Signature Problems

The missing ballots were not the original reason Davidson had contacted Kai about working in the clerk’s office.

According to Kai, the clerk needed a chief deputy after the previous deputy accepted another position in a different city. Davidson was particularly interested in someone who could reach young voters and help address their unusually high rate of ballot rejection.

The problem centered on signatures.

For a young voter, the signature available for comparison may come from a driver’s license application completed at age 16 on an electronic pad. Anyone who has tried to write neatly on one of those pads can appreciate the difficulty.

A signature created that way may not closely resemble the person’s handwriting several years later. And younger voters may have fewer other signatures on file that election workers can use for comparison.

Kai contrasted that situation with a voter whose record includes several additional signature samples. A poor sample is less troublesome when there are other records to consult. When it is the main sample available, the mismatch can become a much larger obstacle.

He cited several figures from Davidson’s work in Utah County:

• About one in 10 ballots from the young-voter group being discussed was rejected.
• Young voters had a particularly low rate of responding to resolve the issue.
• In the 2024 general election, voters ages 18 through 25 accounted for half of Utah County’s rejected ballots.

Those figures should be understood as the Utah County statistics Kai presented. He did not supply comparable rejection data for other counties and explained that Davidson had specifically compiled the local information.

That limitation is important. The numbers describe a serious local pattern, but they should not be casually presented as a national rejection rate.

Ballot Curing Is Part of Participation

When a signature problem is identified, the voter may need to respond and resolve it so the ballot can be counted. Kai referred to that response process as curing the ballot.

A low cure rate means the problem is not finished when the office identifies a mismatch. There is also a communication challenge: reaching the voter and getting a response.

For young voters, political participation therefore involves more than registering and returning an envelope. It also involves understanding that an election office may need follow-up information.

Kai said improving those outcomes was his goal during his time in the office. He felt confident the work had made progress, but he also acknowledged that the general election results would be needed to assess it.

That is the right distinction to preserve. Confidence about an effort is not the same as a measured result. The purpose of gathering the data is to find out whether the outcome actually changed.

A Short-Term Appointment and a Much Larger Controversy

Kai’s appointment in the clerk’s office brought scrutiny of his earlier political comments. Separately, his appointment as political director of College Republicans of America drew attention to past remarks and political associations.

In our conversation, he focused on the county office controversy and his own explanation of it.

He said he and Davidson understood from the beginning that the job would be temporary. He would work through the summer, then leave when he resumed school full-time. He had stopped working in the office by the time we spoke.

From his perspective, the public reaction treated the appointment as something much larger and more permanent than it was.

He also argued that some critics were inconsistent. He saw a contradiction between their broad assurances about election security and their concern that his appointment could jeopardize Utah County election integrity.

That was Kai’s assessment of the criticism. The conversation did not independently resolve the critics’ arguments or examine the complete record of the disputed remarks.

He maintained that statements from older livestreams had been misrepresented or removed from their original context. He described the controversy as politically motivated, largely by people on the left.

A town hall intended to address young-voter ballot problems became, in his telling, approximately two hours of questioning about those past statements.

There are two issues worth keeping separate. One is whether a person’s public record deserves examination when that person accepts a public responsibility. The other is whether the statements being examined are represented accurately.

Context matters, and so does accountability. Kai’s position was that the controversy obscured the practical purpose of his appointment: helping young voters navigate a problem the county had identified in its own data.

Faith, Argentina and the Move to BYU

Kai attended the University of Utah for a year before serving a mission in Mendoza, Argentina. After returning, he transferred to Brigham Young University, where he studies political science.

He jokes about the transfer as a moment of repentance, which is a familiar kind of humor in a state with a lively university rivalry. But he also said he genuinely enjoyed his year at the University of Utah.

The political environment was different, however. He recalled a classmate who worked in Democratic politics posting about him during an in-person class and applying a fascist label to him.

For Kai, that was an early example of how quickly a political identity can shape another person’s response, even before a substantive exchange takes place.

His time in Argentina also gave him a practical skill that now turns up in campus debates. He earned a Spanish certificate and enjoys being able to respond when someone addresses him in Spanish during an immigration discussion.

He described the surprise people sometimes express when he answers fluently. It is a lighter detail, but it adds something useful to the picture: the person sitting behind a political table may have experiences that are not obvious from appearance alone.

Faith, education, language, and political involvement are not separate compartments in his life. They intersect in the subjects he chooses, the institutions he attends, and the conversations he is prepared to have.

BYU and the University of Utah: Different Ways of Disagreeing

Kai recently participated in a project comparing student responses about Donald Trump at BYU and the University of Utah.

He expected more antagonism toward Trump at BYU than he encountered. He also believes there are more liberal students on BYU’s campus than outsiders often assume.

Still, the responses he described from BYU were generally kind, even when students disagreed politically. Some framed their answers around faith, suggesting that they would ask Trump about his testimony of Jesus Christ or encourage him to pray.

By contrast, Kai described the University of Utah responses included in the comparison as much harsher, including wishes for Trump’s death.

Those interviews were not a scientific survey of either university. They were examples Kai used to explain a difference he perceives in how political disagreement is expressed.

I asked whether BYU students might be more muted about their views. He agreed. A culture that encourages niceness can affect the tone of a response without eliminating the disagreement underneath it.

That distinction is easy to miss. Politeness does not necessarily mean ideological agreement, and a religious institution should not automatically be treated as politically uniform.

Abortion Revealed Disagreements Beneath the Surface

Kai pointed to debates organized at BYU by College Democrats, College Republicans, and the Peacemaker Project.

He participated in a more recent debate on immigration. An earlier event included a resolution concerning a federal abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life.

He considered that proposal less restrictive than a hardline pro-life position. What surprised him was hearing peers afterward express views he regarded as incompatible with the church’s standards.

His conclusion was that some students are more willing to express those disagreements privately than in a public setting.

He also welcomed what he saw as greater vigilance from church leadership and specifically praised Elder Gilbert. His broader warning to conservatives was not to take institutions they consider friendly for granted.

In his view, complacency can weaken those spaces. Assuming that everyone already agrees removes the incentive to explain, organize, and defend the beliefs that supposedly define the community.

Turning Campus Energy into Midterm Election Work

Kai’s national goals extend beyond speaking events. He described an ambition for College Republicans of America to organize its largest national deployment for the midterms, with a target of more than 2 million voter contacts.

That was a goal, not an achievement already recorded.

The planned work included a Nevada deployment involving Utah College Republicans and their Nevada counterparts, followed by a Michigan trip in October.

In Michigan, he identified defeating Abdul El-Sayed as a major political objective. He said that outcome would represent a significant victory for College Republicans.

He was equally clear that he wanted the campus speaking tour to go well and was spending free time preparing for it.

These efforts show two different forms of political work. Campus debate requires explaining a position under pressure. Election deployment requires coordinating people around a measurable campaign objective.

Both are part of the future Kai wants for young conservatives: not simply holding opinions, but accepting the work that comes with trying to influence public life.

Choose Whose Voice Deserves Your Attention

Kai’s closing advice was personal rather than partisan. Decide carefully and responsibly whose guidance matters in your life.

His mother calls that trusted circle a personal board of trustees. It means finding peers and advisers whose counsel comes from genuine care, listening to them, and understanding that helpful advice will not always be comfortable.

At the same time, he recommends building resistance to insults. They will come, especially in politics. The challenge is recognizing which voices offer something worth considering and which are simply determined to wound.

That is not a reason to reject every criticism. It is a reason to avoid treating every hostile remark as equally authoritative.

The distinction supports mental health as well as political effectiveness. If every accusation becomes a private crisis, public involvement can become exhausting very quickly. A trusted circle gives a person somewhere better to turn for judgment.

There is a consistent thread through Kai’s advice and experiences: stay composed at the debate table, follow the pattern when voters report a problem, measure the results of outreach, and be deliberate about the people whose counsel you accept.

The future of conservatism will require conviction, but conviction alone is not enough. It also takes preparation, practical responsibility, and the discipline to remain engaged without allowing hostility to define your life.

politicit #utahelections #utpol