Last week we met with other academics at Ground Zero for a summit on terrorism and political violence. The mood was sombre, not only because of the reflections on 9/11, but also because of the painful predictions of the violence to come. None of the attendees would have been surprised to be told that another assassination attempt on the former president would occur days later.
Of course, this is not just a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump. There have been many more plots in recent years, targeting politicians of all stripes, that never reached the point of an exchange of gunfire. The plots are indicative of a broader zeitgeist: we are under increasing threat of political violence.
For example, recent Republican rhetoric against a Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, Ohio, led to dozens of bomb threats against that community. closure of schools and hospitalsIn October 2022, a man attacked the ex's husband House Speaker Nancy Pelosia Democrat, during a kidnapping attempt. In 2020, authorities foiled an attempted kidnapping plot to kidnap Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan.
There is a distinct and terrifying possibility that a violent wave of assassination attempts and domestic terrorism will now erupt, not only against the former president but also against Democratic officials and groups, Trump scapegoats and Trump supporters.
During this presidential election, both Democrats and Republicans are portraying the other side as an existential threat to the country, and so unstable individuals are being inundated with messages that have exacerbated an already volatile situation. This is fuelling violence before Election Day, but that won’t be the end of it – imagine what could happen after the election.
If Vice President Kamala Harris wins the election in November, there are significant concerns about violence waged by Trump supporters who may believe the election was rigged or “stolen,” as Trump claimed in 2020 after losing the popular vote and the electoral college, leading to the “Stop the Steal” movement and fueling the Capitol insurrection of January 6, 2021.
If Trump is elected, many expect a visceral reaction from segments of the far left, including some who might resort to violence. Trump’s election could also embolden followers prone to violence, potentially fueling more terrorism against immigrants, people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, and others. If he continues to praise the January 6 terrorists and even pardon those who were convicted, Trump would be inviting continued vigilantism.
As we have witnessed two assassination attempts against Trump in the past two months, some Republicans are wondering how to reverse the apparent threat. They are right to call for a lowering of the political temperature, and should reflect on their own party's role in promoting violent rhetoric – the creeping normalization of extremely violent political speech, what some have called “widespread extremism.” Trump himself not only called the January 6 defendants “hostages,” “political prisoners,” “martyrs,” and “warriors,” but also reacted to the attack on Paul Pelosi with A joke at a campaign appearance:“We are going to take on crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco. How is her husband? Does anyone know?” In 2020, she publicly told members of a far-right white supremacist group that “Step aside and wait.”
In response to the latest assassination attempt, vice presidential candidate JD Vance mused: “The big difference between conservatives and liberals is that no one has tried to kill Kamala Harris in the last several months.” His analysis, simply put, is completely wrong. For example, in West Virginia, a 66-year-old man was arrested for threatening Harris. His social media posts included the following: warning“AR-15 LOADED AND LOCKED.” This is just one of countless threats and plots; most of those investigated by the Secret Service are not publicly disclosed.
Politicians have contributed to the rise in violence not only with rhetoric but also with their actions and inaction over the past few decades regarding gun policy, leading us to this moment where assault weapons are widely available to any individual with a grievance.
The fact is that the United States remains in the eye of the perfect storm: a highly polarized political climate in which extreme rhetoric is valued more than moderation, in a country awash in weaponry and susceptible to disinformation and digital manipulation.
Combating the threat of political violence is the duty of each It is not just the responsibility of Americans, but also of our elected officials to defuse violent rhetoric. Navigating this crisis will be difficult, and doing so effectively requires bipartisan condemnation of political violence from across the ideological spectrum.
Jacob Ware is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he studies domestic and international terrorism and counterterrorism.terrorism. Colin P. Clarke is a research director at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm in New York City.
