Is Political Violence Rising in America?

Last updated 7 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The gunshot that killed Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025 sparked renewed concern about the state of American political violence. Utah’s governor immediately labeled it a “political assassination,” marking a brutal punctuation point in a period of escalating threats and attacks against public figures.

This tragedy forces a critical question: Is this an isolated incident, or a symptom of a deeper, more dangerous trend?

[For more information on potential solutions, please see our analyses on 1960s political violence in the US and strategies that other countries have followed to address political violence.]

Defining Political Violence

Before measuring trends, we must define political violence itself. At its core, political violence is the use of force by a group or individual with a political purpose or motivation. This isn’t limited to acts against the state—it’s a multi-directional phenomenon.

Political violence can include:

• State violence against citizens: Police brutality or torture
• Violence against government: Rebellion or insurrection
• Violence between groups: Clashes between political militias or communal violence

The Spectrum of Political Violence

Violence manifests across a wide spectrum of actions. On one end are acts of collective violence involving groups in public spaces, including riots and violent demonstrations.

Further along the spectrum is targeted violence focusing on specific individuals or communities. This includes hate crimes, terrorism, assassinations, and other violence against civilians intended to intimidate populations or influence government policy.

A broader form is structural violence—government inaction like refusing to alleviate famines, or deliberate denial of basic needs to politically identifiable groups.

The Actors

Perpetrators include organized rebel groups seeking to overthrow government, political militias allied with elites, or identity militias organized around ethnicity or religion. In contemporary America, however, the threat increasingly comes from less organized sources: rioters, lone offenders, and small, decentralized groups who may self-radicalize and act with little warning.

The Politics of Definition

How events get labeled—as “riots” rather than “protests,” or “terrorism” rather than “rebellion”—has immediate consequences. The FBI’s legal definition, which centers on “acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws,” determines what gets investigated and prosecuted. Research organizations like the independent international conflict monitor ACLED use broader definitions to capture “disorder events” for global comparison, determining what gets counted in trend analyses.

The labels applied shape public perception, media coverage, and policy responses.

The Data: A Complex Picture

Assessing whether political violence is rising requires examining multiple data streams that sometimes point in different directions. The evidence suggests not a simple increase across all forms, but a fundamental transformation in violence’s nature.

High-Profile Attacks Create Perception of Crisis

A disturbing pattern of targeted political violence has shaken the nation, including Charlie Kirk’s assassination, two assassination attempts on President Trump in 2024, the murder of a Minnesota state lawmaker in June 2025, and attacks on the CDC headquarters and other targets.

This string of attacks creates a narrative of a country where political disagreements are increasingly settled with lethal force.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story

While high-profile attacks shape perception, quantitative data provides a more complex picture.

As of 2023, the United States was the only Western nation to rank among the world’s 50 most conflict-ridden countries, driven by rising political violence and far-right group proliferation. However, mobilization by organized extremist groups like militias has been steadily declining since 2020 and is on track to hit a five-year low in 2024.

Simultaneously, vigilante violence—acts by unaffiliated individuals or loosely organized groups—is growing as a proportion of all incidents, frequently targeting Black, Jewish, Arab, Muslim, and LGBTQ+ communities.

Government Data Shows Individualized Threats

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 assessment states the terrorism threat remains “high,” with the greatest risk coming from lone offenders and small groups radicalized within the United States.

The numbers are stark:

• Domestic terrorism investigations have surged 357% over the last decade
• The FBI is investigating 2,700 domestic terrorism cases, up from 850 just three years prior
• The U.S. Capitol Police track 7,500 active threats against Congress members, and threats against local officials increased 10% from 2023 to 2024

The Crime Paradox

This alarming rise in politically motivated threats occurs alongside a crucial counterpoint: overall violent crime is decreasing significantly, with the national homicide rate falling about 15% in 2024, reaching near-generational lows not seen since the early 1960s.

This divergence suggests that forces driving political violence are distinct from those driving general criminality. The country is experiencing targeted increases in ideologically motivated violence even as communities become safer from conventional crime.

Hate Crimes as Political Barometer

The FBI’s 2024 Hate Crime Statistics show 11,679 incidents involving 14,243 victims, marking the second-worst year on record since data collection began in 1991.

The motivations align with America’s “culture war” fault lines:

• Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry: 53.2% of single-bias incidents
• Religion: 23.5%
• Sexual Orientation: 17.2%

2024 was the worst year on record for anti-Jewish hate crimes with 1,938 incidents, while over 2,400 incidents targeted LGBTQ+ Americans.

The Kirk Assassination: A Case Study

The assassination serves as a case study encapsulating nearly every element of the modern American political violence ecosystem. Kirk’s presence at Utah Valley University was already controversial, with an online petition gathering nearly 1,000 signatures calling for the university to bar his appearance.

The Attack

Kirk was about 20 minutes into his presentation before roughly 3,000 people when the attack occurred. In profound irony, he was fielding a question about mass shootings when a single shot rang out, apparently fired from a nearby rooftop. Video footage captured Kirk being struck in the neck, with the scene devolving into chaos as spectators screamed and fled.

The Political Response

The immediate aftermath featured brief, fragile bipartisan unity, with condemnations from across the political spectrum. Former Vice President Kamala Harris stated “political violence has no place in America,” echoed by figures from California Governor Gavin Newsom to Senator Ted Cruz.

However, this unity was fleeting. Within hours, President Trump blamed the assassination on the “radical left,” arguing their rhetoric was “directly responsible for the terrorism.” Libs of TikTok posted “THIS IS WAR,” while Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace told reporters, “Democrats own what happened today.”

This rapid pivot from shared grief to partisan warfare demonstrated how deeply entrenched political conflict dynamics have become.

What’s Driving the Violence

The current climate didn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s fueled by interconnected forces that have transformed American political disagreement.

Affective Polarization

At the heart is affective polarization—not mere policy disagreement, but visceral dislike and distrust of opposing parties. Since the 1990s, Americans’ feelings of anger, contempt, and hatred for political opponents have intensified more sharply than in most other Western democracies.

This is driven less by economic debates about “who gets what” and more by cultural debates over identity, immigration, and religion—arguments about “who we are” that are harder to compromise on.

This reframes political competition as an existential struggle, where the other side’s victory is seen not as a temporary setback but as a fundamental threat to one’s way of life. In such high-stakes environments, psychological barriers to violence begin eroding.

Incendiary Rhetoric

Hostile and dehumanizing language from political leaders acts as a powerful accelerant on polarization’s embers. While rarely a direct line from specific speech to specific violence, research suggests such language makes violence more likely by creating permissive environments.

Studies have found correlations between hostile presidential social media posts and subsequent hate crime increases. Perpetrator manifestos often echo political figures’ language—the El Paso shooter used “invasion” to describe immigration, a term frequently used in political discourse.

A 2020 analysis identified 54 criminal cases where assault or threat perpetrators directly invoked President Trump’s name and rhetoric during their actions.

Digital Acceleration

The modern technological landscape has fundamentally altered how extremist ideologies are spread. The most significant shift is the “ungrouping” of political violence—the threat no longer primarily comes from hierarchical, organized groups but from individuals who don’t belong to formal organizations.

These individuals often self-radicalize online, immersed in digital ecosystems of conspiracy theories, extremist memes, and white-supremacist ideas spreading through YouTube, gaming websites, and social media. This online culture normalizes radical ideologies, creating a reality where millions may become willing to support or excuse violence without ever joining formal groups.

This explains the apparent data paradox: organized extremist mobilization can decline while threats from radicalized lone offenders surge simultaneously.

These three drivers create a dangerous feedback loop. Deepening polarization creates fertile ground for incendiary rhetoric. This rhetoric gets amplified by social media algorithms favoring emotional content. Constant exposure to hostile content further radicalizes individuals and deepens polarization.

The Stakes for Democracy

The rise and transformation of political violence pose profound threats to American democracy’s health and stability, extending far beyond immediate victims.

Chilling Civic Life

Political violence and its constant threat have powerful chilling effects on democratic participation. When violence becomes a tool to settle political disputes, it undermines democracy’s core principle: that disagreements are resolved peacefully through debate, compromise, and elections.

Fear of violence can deter citizens from engaging politically—from attending rallies to simply voting. Research suggests violent election atmospheres can lower voter turnout as people fear for their safety at the polls.

This threat is particularly acute for election administrators. An unprecedented number of these people received threats in 2020, leading to recruitment and retention crises as experienced public servants leave out of safety concerns.

Over time, climates of fear can lead to policy paralysis and, in extremes, preferences for authoritarianism as citizens trade democratic freedoms for promises of order and security.

Echoes of the 1960s

Many historians argue the United States is experiencing political violence not seen since the 1960s and 1970s, marked by deep social divisions, riots, bombings, and assassinations of major figures like Presidents Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The parallels are disturbing: a society grappling with rapid cultural and demographic change, where political factions increasingly view each other as existential enemies.

However, critical differences make the current moment uniquely dangerous. In the 1960s, a small number of media gatekeepers could help shape a national consensus condemning violence. Today’s fragmented, hyper-partisan, algorithm-driven media landscape allows the creation of ideological echo chambers where violence can be justified, celebrated, and encouraged.

Furthermore, while the 1960s-70s saw violence from organized ideological groups like the Weather Underground, today’s threat is characterized by the “ungrouping” of political violence, with lone actors radicalized online representing the primary danger.

The Perception Problem

Some recent studies argue that broad public support for political violence is significantly exaggerated by flawed survey methodologies. While many may endorse “violence” abstractly, support plummets to single digits when asked about specific severe acts like injuring or killing people.

This suggests true violence support is confined to a small, extreme fringe rather than being a mass phenomenon.

However, the perception of widespread violence support on the opposing side is itself a powerful conflict driver. Studies show partisans overestimate rivals’ violence support by 200-400%. Believing the “other side” is ready to use force makes one’s own side more likely to view violence as justifiable self-defense.

Therefore, even if Americans who truly support violence are few, the fear and distrust generated by violent threats, amplified by polarized media and politics, are enough to inflict serious damage on the nation’s civic fabric and democratic health.

The Path Forward

The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents more than an individual tragedy—it’s a warning sign of democracy under stress. The data reveals a complex picture: while organized extremist groups may be declining, the threat from radicalized individuals is growing. Political violence is becoming more atomized, unpredictable, and difficult to prevent.

The transformation from organized to “ungrouped” violence presents new challenges for law enforcement and society. Traditional counterterrorism approaches designed for hierarchical organizations are less effective against self-radicalized lone actors who leave few digital footprints and belong to no formal groups.

The speed at which Kirk’s assassination was politicized—from bipartisan condemnation to partisan recrimination within hours—illustrates how deeply entrenched our political divisions have become. This cycle of violence and recrimination risks creating more violence, as each side blames the other and tensions escalate further.

Breaking this cycle requires recognizing that political violence is not inevitable. It’s the product of specific conditions—extreme polarization, inflammatory rhetoric, and digital echo chambers—that can be addressed. The question is whether American institutions and leaders have the will to tackle these root causes before the warning signs become something far worse.

The memory of Charlie Kirk and all victims of political violence demands nothing less than a serious reckoning with the forces tearing at American democracy’s fabric. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.