A recent string of violent incidents involving political figures has further intensified the growing concerns over political violence in the United States. The fatal shooting of a Democratic Minnesota state legislator and her spouse, along with the injury of another lawmaker and his wife in attacks at their residences, underscores a grim pattern of political aggression.
In just the past several weeks, the unsettling list of politically motivated aggression has also included the murder of two Israeli embassy staff in Washington, an arson attack on a Colorado march advocating for the release of Israeli hostages, and a firebombing at the Pennsylvania governor’s residence during a Jewish holiday, while the governor and his family were inside.
These events add to a longer history of politically fueled violence—recent instances include the killing of a healthcare executive in New York, an assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, a violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband driven by conspiracy ideas, and a 2017 shooting at GOP lawmakers during a baseball practice.
Matt Dallek, a political science professor at George Washington University who focuses on extremism, commented on the alarming rise in these acts of violence, suggesting that the traditional boundaries curbing such violence are disintegrating. He pointed out that societal signals are increasingly volatile.
Beyond individual incidents, politics have instigated broader massacres. Perpetrators of synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh, a shooting in a Latino-populated Walmart in El Paso, and a racially motivated attack at a grocery store in Buffalo have all cited conspiracy theories about racial replacements fueled by parts of the far-right’s immigration rhetoric.
The Anti-Defamation League reported that between 2022 and 2024, right-wing extremists were responsible for all 61 politically motivated murders in the U.S. This changed with the January 2025 event, where a man supporting the Islamic State executed a deadly attack in New Orleans, highlighting the wide ideological spread of such violence.
Jacob Ware, a terrorism researcher, remarked on the seeming randomness and increasing frequency of these violent acts, attributing them to various ideological roots.
Historically, the U.S. has witnessed significant political violence, from the assassination of President Lincoln to racially charged violence in the South. Yet, experts argue that the current level of politically motivated aggression might be equaling the intensity of the 1960s and 1970s.
This escalation coincides with policy shifts under recent administrations, such as Trump’s, where focus on white supremacist extremism investigations was reduced, while efforts increased in detaining undocumented immigrants. Dallek emphasized that these changes could be influencing recent violence trends.
Highlighting the mixed messaging, Trump’s pardoning of January 6 Capitol riot participants projected a controversial stance, possibly emboldening violent extremists by implying violent acts could be overlooked if aligned with his support.
Political violence isn’t always aligned with clear-cut ideologies. Cases exist where attackers have unclear or contradictory motivations, like the man who recently bombed a fertility clinic in Palm Springs.
The Minnesota attack by Vance Boelter, who had a list targeting Democrats and abortion advocates, sparked speculation about his political inclinations, with conservatives claiming he may have been liberal due to past affiliations.
Following these attacks, public figures have urged caution in responses to avoid normalizing violence. Notably, after previous incidents, reactions like those following the attack on Pelosi’s husband generated divisive theories.
With President Trump’s administration employing militaristic rhetoric and actions, particularly in response to protests, there’s an ongoing debate about the impact of such discourse on political violence.
Dallek observes that extreme views are becoming central in political rhetoric and discourse, potentially heightening tensions and contributing to more aggressive political climates.