Charlie Kirk’s killing came amid a rise in political violence in the US, the kind now so frequent that it moves swiftly out of news cycles it would once have dominated.
In the first six months of 2025, more than 520 plots and acts of terrorism and targeted violence occurred, affecting nearly all US states and causing 96 deaths and 329 injuries.
The roots of political violence A host of factors play into the rise of political violence, and the public’s support for said violence, which has been increasing in surveys over the past year.
… Ideology is often a lagging indicator for someone who’s gravitating towards violence.” How politicians of all political backgrounds respond to incidents of political violence, no matter the motive, can help cool the rhetoric or inflame it.
It is not inevitable that there will continue to be more violence, Braniff said.
Charlie Kirk was killed as political violence in the United States increased. This type of violence is now so common that it quickly fades from news cycles where it used to predominate.
The list continues to grow. A few examples include the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump during his campaign last year, the April arson attack that destroyed Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home, and the June shooting death of a Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband by a man posing as a police officer.
More than 520 terrorist plots, acts, and targeted violence took place in the first half of 2025, impacting almost every US state and resulting in 329 injuries and 96 fatalities. According to data from the University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, this represents an increase of almost 40% over the first half of 2024.
Mass casualty attacks, defined as those in which four or more people were killed or injured, rose by 187% in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period the previous year. Late in August, Michael Jensen, the research director at START, stated on LinkedIn that the organization’s data showed “the warning signs of growing civil unrest in the US.”.
Though it’s unclear which way it will go, the murder of a well-known Trump supporter during a public gathering on a Utah college campus this week may mark a turning point in political violence. Prominent politicians postponed events due to safety concerns, and historically Black colleges went on lockdown due to threats, as the right declared war on the left after Kirk’s murder.
At a press conference on Friday, Republican Governor Spencer Cox of Utah stated, “I firmly believe this is a watershed in American history.”. “What sort of watershed is it? That chapter hasn’t been written yet. Is a dark chapter in our history coming to an end, or is a new, darker chapter beginning?
According to political violence experts, the current situation is comparable to the US in the 1960s, when assassins killed Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy during a period of rapid social change and backlash. However, Amy Pate, the executive director and acting director at START, stated that social media and the easy access to extremely deadly weapons are two significant changes that make this era more dangerous.
She claimed that because conspiracy theories are becoming more popular and there are online forums where they flourish, radicalization is “speeding up” and that people have less time to stop someone who is headed toward violence.
what causes political violence.
The public’s support for political violence has been rising in surveys over the past year, and there are many factors contributing to this trend.
People are not happy with the government, the two main parties, or their capacity to bring about meaningful change. Luke Baumgartner, a research fellow in the program on extremism at George Washington University, stated that there is also a decline in trust in institutions. According to START’s data, 35 percent of terrorist incidents in the first half of 2025 were targeted at government targets, up from 15 percent in the same period in 2024.
Social media algorithms favor polarization, and media ecosystems are fragmented. According to William Braniff, executive director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) in American University’s school of public affairs, prominent voices can draw attention by presenting black-and-white scenarios.
Braniff remarked, “We’re continuously being inundated with information that is intended to incite righteous rage, particularly toward another individual or community.”.
This year’s terrorist plots and attacks were based on a variety of ideologies: 32 had some connection to antisemitism; 20 targeted organizations that enforce immigration laws; 13 targeted nonviolent administration protests; 22 targeted the LGBTQ+ community; seven targeted Muslims; and six targeted individuals thought to be immigrants. Ten attacks and plots targeted Democrats, while 21 targeted Republicans who were lawmakers.
Today’s violent actors are “much more ideologically diffuse, and they don’t strictly adhere to a single ideology,” according to Baumgartner, although political violence is more frequently committed by the far right if you zoom out over time.
According to Braniff, “people don’t begin their journey as violent extremist experts on a given ideology.”. Underlying risk factors exist in their lives. They fail to address those risk factors. A person’s ideology is frequently a lagging indicator of their propensity for violence. “”.
The way politicians from all parties react to instances of political violence, regardless of the cause, can either stoke or dampen the debate.
Pate stated that while denouncing the violence is beneficial, the context of those denouncing statements is crucial. Do you condemn it as a means of profiting from the nation’s level of polarization, or do you use it as an opportunity to highlight and denounce it?” she asked.
The gunman was apprehended on Friday, but his motivations are still being figured out. According to the authorities, he had inscribed phrases typical of online gaming communities on the gun casings. Regardless of his political objectives, Trump promised to target the “radical left” and prominent conservative voices declared war before a shooter was publicly identified.
Because there were radicals on the right as well, Trump was asked how he would fix the nation on a Fox program on Friday.
“I’ll tell you something that will get me into trouble, but I don’t give a damn,” Trump declared. “The right-wing radicals are frequently radical because they oppose crime. The problem lies with the left-wing radicals. They are also incredibly nasty, politically astute, and vicious. “”.
Baumgartner warned that calls for war, retaliation, or retribution could spark further acts of violence. “Anyone with a grievance and a gun, or a grievance and access to a weapon of some kind, and you have a recipe for more violence.”. “Violent acts against people don’t require an army,” he stated.
Prevention initiatives might be beneficial.
Shannon Watson is the founder and executive director of Majority in the Middle, a nonprofit organization in Minnesota that advocates for political civility. Despite the two main political parties’ wide ideological differences, she claimed that people frequently identify the opposition with its worst members. “We don’t evaluate ourselves against their best. We contrast our best efforts with their worst,” she remarked.
According to Watson, people who are very politically active may find it more difficult to shake the belief that their side is morally correct and the other is not. She spends more time encouraging people to build relationships unrelated to politics than she does trying to get them to question their preconceptions when she speaks to them about polarization.
It’s easier to get along and try to resolve some of the differences once you realize someone is complex and less like a caricature, she said, rather than simply brushing them off. “It’s very difficult to hate up close. “.”.
PERIL’s Braniff oversaw the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, a federal agency, until he resigned in March over staff reductions. He claimed that federal funding for prevention initiatives that could stop targeted violence and acts of terrorism has been discontinued, and grant programs to local governments nationwide have been reduced.
Prevention programs can identify risk factors, such as a breakup or termination, unresolved trauma, access to dangerous online social networks, and possession of weapons, and work to address them. Pate supports a public health response to the crisis that offers vulnerable individuals deterrents to violence, such as substance abuse treatment or counseling.
Republicans have targeted researchers who monitored some of these online networks, arguing that their work violates free speech. According to Pate, resources devoted to this tracking have been put to other uses.
“When these attacks occur, I always wonder if the intelligence analyst missed some signs that this was coming because they were tasked with something else or moved to a different priority,” she said.
According to Braniff, there is no guarantee that there will be more violence over time. Investing in preventative measures like seatbelts and fire alarms has helped the nation turn the tide on other public harms.
He asserted that “it’s only inevitable if we do nothing about it, which is what we’re doing at the federal level right now.”. But it’s true that violence will probably become more frequent and severe if we do nothing about it. “”.
