The recent tragedy involving the killing of Charlie Kirk highlights a troubling trend: the alarming rise of political violence in the U.S.. This issue has become so pervasive that incidents that would once dominate news cycles are quickly forgotten. The list of violent events is extensive and continues to grow, including two assassination attempts on Donald Trump during his campaign and the arson attack at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home. Additionally, a Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband were murdered by a man impersonating a police officer in June. These events showcase a disturbing escalation in political violence.
According to data from the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland, there have been over 520 plots and acts of terrorism and targeted violence in the first six months of 2025 alone. This surge has resulted in 96 deaths and 329 injuries, marking a nearly 40% increase compared to the same period in 2024. The statistics reveal a staggering 187.5% rise in mass casualty attacks, where four or more victims were either killed or wounded. Michael Jensen, research director at START, noted on LinkedIn that “the warning signs of growing civil unrest in the U.S. are evident” in the data.
The assassination of a high-profile Trump ally at a public event in Utah could be a pivotal moment in the landscape of political violence. Following Kirk's murder, the right has declared war on the left, leading to the cancellation of political events over safety concerns and lockdowns at historically Black colleges due to threats. Utah's Republican Governor Spencer Cox characterized this moment as a potential watershed in American history, questioning whether it signifies the end of a dark chapter or the beginning of a darker one.
Experts studying political violence draw parallels between the current climate and the U.S. in the 1960s, a period marked by the assassinations of prominent figures like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. However, this era is deemed more perilous due to two key factors: the rise of social media and the widespread availability of lethal weapons. Amy Pate, acting director at START, emphasizes that the rapid dissemination of conspiracy theories on social media accelerates radicalization, leaving little time for intervention before individuals resort to violence.
A multitude of factors contributes to the increasing support for political violence. Public dissatisfaction with the government and the major political parties has surged, coupled with a growing distrust in institutions. START's data indicates that 35% of terrorist incidents in the first half of 2025 were aimed at government targets, a significant increase from 15% in 2024. Additionally, fragmented media ecosystems and social media algorithms that encourage polarization play a crucial role in this trend. Prominent voices create a narrative that fosters righteous anger, often directing it toward specific communities.
The ideologies behind political violence in 2025 are notably diverse. While historical data suggests that far-right groups have been responsible for most violent acts, today's perpetrators are less likely to adhere strictly to a single ideology. Luke Baumgartner, a research fellow at George Washington University's program on extremism, points out that many violent actors have complex backgrounds and may not begin their journey as extremists. Instead, underlying risk factors in their lives often go unaddressed.
How politicians respond to incidents of political violence is crucial in shaping public discourse. Condemning violence is essential, but the context of these condemnations matters greatly. Pate emphasizes the importance of addressing the polarization within the country rather than using such incidents to further exacerbate division. The motives of Kirk's shooter are still being examined, as authorities noted he had written phrases on gun casings associated with online gaming communities. Despite the uncertain motives, prominent voices within the right have called for a confrontational stance against perceived threats from the left.
Calls for war, revenge, or retribution from the right could lead to further violence. Baumgartner warns that even a single individual with a grievance and access to a weapon could escalate the situation dramatically. It is crucial to recognize that it does not require organized groups to inflict violence; a single actor can have a significant impact.
Prevention programs play a vital role in addressing the root causes of political violence. Shannon Watson, founder of the nonprofit Majority in the Middle, advocates for promoting civility in politics. She highlights the tendency for individuals to compare their best to the worst actions of the opposing side, which fosters division. Building relationships beyond political affiliations can mitigate polarized views and facilitate better understanding among individuals.
Braniff, previously leading the federal government’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, notes that funding for prevention programs has been cut, limiting the government’s ability to address potential acts of terrorism and violence effectively. A public health approach to this crisis, as advocated by Pate, could include counseling services and interventions targeting vulnerable individuals.
The trajectory of political violence in the U.S. is not predetermined. As Braniff states, the nation has successfully reversed harmful trends in public health through targeted prevention measures. If the government continues to neglect this issue, the frequency and severity of violence are likely to increase. However, by investing in prevention and addressing the underlying factors contributing to political violence, there is potential for a more peaceful and cohesive society.
