On the morning of June 2025, the quiet of a Minnesota neighborhood was shattered by a tragedy that would soon send shockwaves through the nation. State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were found dead in their home—victims of an assassination that, at first glance, appeared to be yet another attack on progressive politicians. But as reporting by The 19th and experts like Cynthia Miller-Idriss quickly revealed, the story ran deeper than political partisanship. It was, at its core, an act rooted in gender-based animosity—an issue that, despite mounting evidence, continues to be overlooked in national security threat models.
Just days after the attack, UN and regional human rights experts released a joint declaration, urging governments worldwide to halt the criminalization of protesters and civil society activists. The experts pointed to a disturbing pattern of arbitrary arrests and persecution, warning that the foundational pillars of democracy—freedom of assembly and association—must be protected, not treated as threats to public order or national security. According to the declaration, "States must reaffirm their commitment to protect the rights of freedom of assembly and of association. They are essential for enabling collective action, participation, solidarity and dialogue which are fundamental for ensuring a resilient and inclusive democracy, and for the realisation of the UN Charter’s aspiration to preserve peace and human rights for all."
This call for action comes at a time when, as the UN experts noted, thousands of human rights defenders and activists are facing widespread repression. Many have been arrested without due process and subjected to harsh sentences, while countless civil society organizations have been forced to dissolve or defund. Laws targeting such organizations have proliferated in recent years, with countries like Georgia, Russia, Türkiye, Egypt, and Belarus enacting measures under the guise of combating foreign influence. Georgia’s controversial "Foreign Agents" law, passed in 2024, requires organizations receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as agents of foreign influence—a move widely criticized by international groups as an attempt to silence dissent and suppress independent media.
At the heart of the UN experts’ concerns is Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which enshrines the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The article is explicit: "no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right." Yet, as the experts strongly condemned, there is a growing trend to stigmatize those exercising their rights as "enemies," "traitors," "spies," "terrorists," or "criminals." Such language, they warned, only deepens mistrust and undermines the social cohesion essential to democracy.
But the dangers facing civil society are not limited to legal crackdowns. The assassination of Rep. Hortman and her husband highlighted another, often ignored, threat: the intersection of gender-based bigotry and violent extremism. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a leading authority on extremism and director of the Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University, emphasized that the attack was motivated not just by politics, but by opposition to progressive stances on reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ issues. "They were progressive about gender issues, right? It was about reproductive rights and LGBTQ issues. So let’s talk about the gender part of that, not just the progressive part of that," Miller-Idriss told a D.C. crowd, as reported by The 19th.
The man charged in the Hortman shooting had also targeted abortion providers and advocates of abortion rights, preaching against these causes as part of his evangelical ministry and condemning LGBTQ+ people. For Miller-Idriss and other gender studies scholars, the connection between gender-based bigotry and violent extremism is far from new. "Violence that is rooted in gendered issues is a huge predictor of — and possibly the biggest predictor, in some studies — of trajectories that lead to mass violence," she explained. "Over half of mass shooters are targeting a partner."
Indeed, the statistics are sobering. A study of fatal mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 found that 59% were related to domestic violence, and in 68% of cases, the shooter had a history of domestic violence. Victims are less likely to survive mass shootings when domestic violence is a factor. Yet, as Miller-Idriss points out, the link between gender-based violence and extremism is rarely acknowledged in official threat assessments. The FBI’s 2018 report on active shooters, for example, listed 22 warning signs but failed to mention gender-related behaviors. Similarly, the 2019 Office of the Director of National Intelligence classified violent domestic extremism into broad categories, shunting misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ violence into a catch-all group.
Why does this gap persist? Miller-Idriss argues that the pervasiveness of gender inequality makes it uncomfortable for many to confront. "Most people are going to experience gender divides in their life at some point, right? It’s a huge dividing line. So people experience it across the board. It’s uncomfortable because they might be complicit." Compounding the problem is a lack of incentives for law enforcement to document crimes related to misogyny. Such crimes are often more difficult to prosecute, and when hate groups are involved, charges rarely reflect the gender-based nature of the violence. This lack of data obscures the true scale of the problem.
Institutional silos further complicate matters. Domestic violence is typically handled by the Department of Justice as a local, interpersonal issue, while mass violence falls under the Department of Homeland Security as a national security concern. "In our field, my side of the field, literally, domestic violence is handled by the Department of Justice, and it’s seen as a local interpersonal issue, and mass violence is handled by the Department of Homeland Security, and it’s seen as a national security issue," Miller-Idriss explained.
To bridge this divide, Miller-Idriss calls for integrating misogyny and gender-based hostility into national security threat models. She advocates for state attorneys general to create sex trafficking enhancement charges, enabling authorities to hold extremist groups accountable for gender-based violence in cases involving drug or arms trafficking. But she also stresses the importance of community-level action. Educating youth about gendered grievance narratives and hostile sexism—without being "preachy," as young people themselves advise—can help inoculate them against radicalization.
PERIL, Miller-Idriss’s research lab, has developed resource kits for parents, educators, coaches, and faith leaders to combat radicalization and gender-based bigotry among youth. These resources aim to help adults talk to kids about the messages they encounter online and among peers, fostering resilience to harmful narratives and scapegoating.
Miller-Idriss’s new book, Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism, published on September 16, 2025, brings together research across disciplines to show how misogyny repeatedly surfaces in the history of violent extremists. She takes a broad view of misogyny, including anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs, describing it as "the hostile enforcement of patriarchal norms and expectations." Her work underscores the urgent need for policymakers, law enforcement, and communities to recognize the role of gender in extremism—and to act before more lives are lost.
As the world grapples with rising repression of civil society and the chilling effects of gender-based violence, the message from experts is clear: democracy’s resilience depends on protecting fundamental freedoms and confronting the forces—legal, social, and ideological—that threaten them from within.