Primer: Political Violence
On April 25, 2026 attendees at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner experienced gunshots targeting multiple Trump Administration officials, including the president himself, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and members of the Cabinet. This shooting, which has gripped the nation’s attention, is part of the recent rise in political violence against elected officials. In just the past year, the nation has witnessed a firebombing attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home, an assassination attempt at a Trump rally, and the killings of Democratic Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband.
Although political violence against elected officials has noticeably increased in recent years, the phenomenon has a long history in the United States. More than one-third of the presidents in the twentieth century experienced assassination attempts, and two were killed. In particular, historians have noticed similarities between the violence the nation faces today and that of the 1960s and ‘70s, when President John F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. were shot. In the 1960s and ‘70s, political violence was largely perpetrated by left-wing actors driven by anti-war, anti-capitalist, and Black nationalist beliefs. By contrast, the following decades saw heightened violence from the far right, led by anti-government individuals, white supremacists, religious extremists, and anti-abortion activists. In the early aughts, left-wing radical environmentalists adopted ecoterrorism, followed by a surge in right-wing violence in the 2010s.
Experts have attributed the twenty-first-century rise in political violence to factors such as increased political polarization, social media, and widespread availability of guns. In 2023, U.S. Capitol Police investigated over 8,000 threats to congressmembers—a 50 percent increase compared to 2018 and over 10 times higher than 2016. On the state level, a Brennan Center for Justice report in 2023 found that state legislators experienced an increased volume and severity of violence from 2020 to 2023. When including less severe forms of abuse such as insults or stalking, the study found that political violence affected 89 percent of state legislators and 52 percent of local officeholders. The abuse disproportionately impacted women and Republicans; moreover, legislators in marginalized communities—such as women, people of color, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals—often faced abuse that targeted their identity.
Those who believe that political violence against elected officials cannot be justified often point to its negative impact on democratic processes. Political violence can easily deter individuals from entering or remaining in politics, especially for women and early-career individuals. In certain situations, legislators may vote one way or another in order to protect their safety; a Republican congressman admitted to Senator Mitt Romney that he had wanted to vote in favor of Trump’s second impeachment but ultimately voted against it to protect his family. Moreover, some representatives may reduce their civic engagement with constituents in certain areas of their district because they do not feel safe or protected by local law enforcement.
Others view political violence as a necessary means to win an existential political struggle where freedom and democracy depend on defeating the opposing party. Perpetrators themselves have often attributed their violent acts to extreme political disillusionment and a desire to change what they perceive as a failed system. Finally, some may discount violence as a mere symptom of political instability rather than the root cause, pointing to deeper motivators such as racism or misogyny as the true pathologies we should contend with.
Come join our debate this Monday at 7pm in Scott Hall!
"DC Capitol Storming" by TapTheForwardAssist is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
