The assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, has thrown the United States into a renewed and urgent debate over the state of political violence in the country. In the days following the killing, President Donald Trump wasted no time in blaming what he called “radical leftist groups,” asserting that “they should be put in jail.” His top adviser, Stephen Miller, echoed and amplified the sentiment, declaring left-wing organizations a “vast domestic terror movement” and vowing that the administration would “use every resource we have…throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again,” as reported by The Conversation.
But as the rhetoric from the highest levels of government grows more heated, experts and researchers warn that the reality of political violence in America is far more complex—and far less partisan—than the headlines and soundbites suggest. According to data and analyses from both government and academic sources, most domestic terrorism fatalities in the U.S. since 2001 have been perpetrated by individuals motivated by right-wing ideologies. In fact, right-wing attacks have accounted for approximately 75 to 80 percent of domestic terrorism deaths over that period, according to research summarized by The Conversation.
The murder of Kirk, coming just months after the assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, underscores a disturbing trend: political violence is on the rise. Nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers during the 2024 cycle, ranging from online death threats to doxing and intimidation. These incidents, while still a small fraction of overall violent crime, have an outsized impact, amplifying fear and deepening polarization in an already divided society.
What’s driving this surge? Political scientist Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, warns that America is entering an era of violent populism, with levels of political violence now at their highest since the 1970s. “Support for political violence has risen significantly since 2024,” Pape notes, with data indicating that 40 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans now express some willingness to use force under certain conditions (Security Magazine).
Yet, not everyone sees the situation as an impending catastrophe. Sean Westwood of Dartmouth’s Polarization Research Lab points out that fewer than 2 percent of Americans condone political murder. The real danger, he says, may be the widespread belief that one’s political opponents are far more violent than they actually are—a “phantom enemy” perception that heightens mistrust and anxiety on all sides.
Clionadh Raleigh of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) adds another layer, emphasizing that most U.S. political violence, even high-profile assassinations, are the work of isolated individuals, not organized partisan armies. “We are not seeing mass partisan armies, but lone actors in a heavily armed, polarized society,” Raleigh observes.
Indeed, the pathway to violence in political contexts closely mirrors what security professionals have long studied in workplace violence. Rarely do these acts erupt spontaneously. Instead, perpetrators typically follow a well-documented sequence: grievance, ideation, planning, preparation, and finally, implementation. The difference between a political assassin and a workplace shooter, experts say, is often just the publicity their actions attract.
In this environment, distinguishing between rhetoric and reality becomes critical. As Security Magazine notes, “media narratives tend to exaggerate the scope of the threat,” suggesting an impending civil war while social media stokes fear and anger. Security professionals, however, caution against equating angry words with imminent violence. Most incendiary posts online will never translate into real-world harm. The challenge is to separate the “talkers” from the “doers,” using structured threat assessment teams (TATs) and evidence-based models to evaluate credibility and capability.
The lessons from workplace violence prevention are instructive. Ignoring warning signs or dismissing threats as “just rhetoric” can have devastating consequences, as shown in the tragic case of Charter Communications, where an employee with known behavioral issues murdered a customer, resulting in a $7 billion jury award against the company for negligent retention. The parallels to political violence are clear: proactive intervention and cross-functional collaboration are essential to prevent escalation.
Experts also warn of escalation dynamics—how one act of violence can legitimize retaliation, creating waves of tit-for-tat attacks. Online ecosystems amplify this effect, celebrating or demonizing perpetrators and providing justification for “revenge” actions. Political scientist Arie Perlinger has documented how assassinations can prompt retaliatory acts, especially when inflammatory rhetoric from leaders acts as an accelerant.
Despite the rising tide, most Americans—across the political spectrum—continue to reject violence as a legitimate tool. The overwhelming majority, data show, want nothing to do with bloodshed. Still, the risk remains that isolated actors, radicalized by grievance and emboldened by polarizing narratives, may act on their impulses.
Definitions of political violence remain a sticking point. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security define domestic violent extremism as violence or credible threats intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians. But the lack of a formal federal mechanism to charge individuals with domestic terrorism complicates efforts to track and prosecute such acts. U.S. law, prioritizing First Amendment protections, bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as terrorist entities—leaving a patchwork of definitions and enforcement measures.
Right-wing extremist violence, however, has been consistently deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years. The 2015 Charleston church shooting, the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack, the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing are all grim reminders of the threat posed by individuals motivated by far-right ideologies. Left-wing extremist incidents, by contrast, have made up about 10 to 15 percent of incidents and less than 5 percent of fatalities, often involving property damage rather than loss of life.
So, is America at a turning point, or simply enduring another flashpoint in its long, turbulent history? The answer, as so often, is somewhere in between. Political violence is rare but disproportionately impactful. Its causes are rooted in deep polarization, misperceptions, and the amplification of grievances—both online and off. Security professionals stress the importance of staying grounded in evidence, resisting the urge to exaggerate threats, and focusing on proven strategies of prevention and early intervention.
As the nation grapples with these challenges, the path forward will depend not just on rhetoric or policy, but on the willingness of leaders and citizens alike to recognize the warning signs, resist cycles of fear and retribution, and uphold the democratic norms that have long defined American society.
