Rising Tensions: Exploring Political Violence Trends in the United States

Posted on June 15, 2025, by InsightOutVision | Category: News | Sub-Category: Crime & Public Safety

The tragic assassination of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and the wounding of State Senator John Hoffman on June 14, 2025, have thrust the issue of political violence into the national spotlight. These targeted attacks, allegedly perpetrated by Vance Luther Boelter, underscore a disturbing trend of rising hostility in American politics. At InsightOutVision, we aim to unpack this complex issue with clarity and insight, examining recent data, historical context, and expert analysis to engage readers while fostering constructive dialogue. Below, we explore political violence trends in the United States, their causes, and their implications, in short, scannable sections designed for clarity and impact.

A Snapshot of Political Violence in 2025

Political violence—acts of force or intimidation to advance political objectives—has surged in the United States over the past decade. A Reuters investigation identified over 300 cases of political violence since the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, marking the largest sustained increase since the 1970s, a period marked by Vietnam War protests and revolutionary groups like the Weather Underground. Recent incidents include:

• Minnesota Lawmaker Attacks (2025): The killing of Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the wounding of Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, in what Governor Tim Walz called a “politically motivated assassination.” The suspect, Boelter, allegedly targeted Democrats, carrying a list of nearly 70 names.

• Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion Arson (2025): A man set fire to Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence, forcing his family to flee. The suspect admitted to hating Shapiro and planning to attack him with a hammer.

• Trump Assassination Attempts (2024): Two failed attempts on former President Donald Trump’s life, one in July and another in September, heightened fears of escalating violence.

These high-profile cases reflect a broader pattern of threats and attacks against elected officials, judges, and campaign workers, fueled by polarization and distrust.

Key Trends in Political Violence

Recent research highlights several alarming trends shaping political violence in the United States, with implications for 2025 and beyond. The Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) at Princeton University identified five key trends from 2024, many of which persist:

1. Surge in Threats Against Local Officials: Threats against local elected officials, often tied to political disagreements, remain high. While slightly down from 2022 peaks, they continue to deter civic participation.

2. Self-Radicalization via Online Platforms: Unlike organized groups like the Proud Boys, much of today’s violence comes from “lone actors” radicalized online through disinformation and conspiracy theories. Low-cost technologies, like 3D-printed firearms, amplify their threat.

3. Decline in Organized Extremist Activity: Mobilization by groups like Oath Keepers has waned since 2021 due to legal crackdowns, but this has shifted risks to unpredictable individual actors.

4. Polarization as a Driver: Political polarization, fueled by identity-based divisions (urban vs. rural, racial, and religious), normalizes violence against perceived “enemies.” Highly competitive elections, like those in 2024, heighten risks.

5. Global Influences: Geopolitical tensions, such as the Gaza war, inspire domestic extremism, particularly from Islamist groups or far-right movements exploiting anti-immigrant sentiments.

The Allianz Risk Barometer 2025 ranks political violence as a top-10 global business risk, noting over 160 significant anti-government protests worldwide in 2024, with 18% lasting over three months.

Public Support for Political Violence

Surveys reveal a troubling rise in public tolerance for political violence, though the majority of Americans reject it. Key findings include:

• PRRI Survey (2023): 23% of Americans agreed that “patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country,” up from 15% in 2021. Support was highest among Republicans (33%), followed by independents (22%) and Democrats (13%).

• Ipsos KnowledgePanel (2024): About 26.2% of respondents justified violence for at least one of 17 political objectives, stable from 2023. However, only 5.7% strongly believed a civil war was likely, down from 13.7% in 2022.

• Left-Leaning Shift (2025): A Scientific American report noted that 35% of participants at a left-leaning “Stand Up for Science” rally in March 2025 believed violence might be necessary, a rise from 33% earlier in the year.

These shifts reflect growing frustration across the political spectrum, with white Christian nationalists and QAnon believers showing particularly high support for violence.

Historical Context: Cycles of Violence

Political violence in the U.S. is not new but follows cyclical patterns. The Vision of Humanity Institute notes spikes roughly every 50 years, tied to socioeconomic and cultural unrest:

• 1860s–1870s: Post-Civil War Reconstruction saw widespread electoral violence, particularly in the South.

• 1910s–1920s: Labor strikes and anarchist bombings marked unrest during rapid industrialization.

• 1960s–1970s: Civil rights struggles, Vietnam War protests, and groups like the Weather Underground fueled violence.

• 2010s–Present: Far-right terrorism rose 320% in the West from 2015 to 2019, with 28 of 57 U.S. terrorist events in 2018 attributed to far-right extremists.

Today’s cycle, driven by polarization, declining trust in institutions, and disinformation, mirrors past periods of strain but is amplified by social media and accessible weaponry.

Drivers of Political Violence

Experts identify several root causes fueling the current wave:

1. Polarization and Identity Politics: Americans increasingly sort into opposing identity groups—urban, liberal, minority Democrats vs. rural, conservative, white Republicans—heightening tribalism.

2. Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories: QAnon, election fraud claims, and Christian nationalism feed narratives of existential threat. For example, 46% of those who believe the 2020 election was stolen support violence.

3. Economic and Cultural Grievances: Rural economic decline, job losses from global trade, and perceived cultural erosion among white Christians drive resentment, often exploited by populist leaders.

4. Weak Institutional Guardrails: Recent laws granting state legislatures more electoral power risk undermining democratic norms, inviting disputes resolved through violence.

5. Rhetoric from Leaders: Inflammatory language, like Trump’s calls for “retribution” or Biden’s “semi-fascism” label, escalates tensions, though both sides condemn violence when targeted.

Consequences for Democracy

Political violence erodes democratic norms and public trust. Key impacts include:

• Chilling Civic Engagement: Threats deter local officials and poll workers, reducing participation.

• Eroding Trust in Institutions: False election fraud claims and attacks on judges weaken faith in courts and electoral systems.

• Business Disruptions: Companies face property damage, employee safety risks, and supply chain issues, with insured losses from riots exceeding $10 billion over the past decade.

• Social Fragmentation: Violence deepens divisions, making compromise harder.

The Carnegie Endowment warns that unchecked violence could lead to “significant democratic decline.”

Strategies for Mitigation

Despite the grim outlook, research highlights effective resilience strategies:

1. Community-Led De-escalation: Local leaders and civil society groups can mediate conflicts and promote dialogue, as seen in successful 2024 initiatives.

2. Condemning Violence Bipartisanly: Political leaders must unequivocally reject violence, as Governor Shapiro urged after the arson attack.

3. Strengthening Institutions: Neutral law enforcement and transparent elections rebuild trust.

4. Countering Disinformation: Media literacy and platform moderation can reduce radicalization.

5. Social Norms Against Violence: Public campaigns, like those emphasized by Harvard’s Ash Center, can make violence socially unacceptable.

Garen Wintemute, a violence prevention researcher, notes that while a small percentage supports violence, “the vast majority of Americans are unwilling to participate,” offering hope for de-escalation.

The Road Ahead

As the U.S. navigates 2025, the risk of political violence remains high, particularly with policy changes like proposed mass deportations under the Trump administration potentially sparking protests. The Minnesota attacks serve as a stark reminder of the human cost of unchecked hostility. Yet, the decline in organized extremist activity and stable public opposition to violence suggest opportunities for progress.

At InsightOutVision, we believe in the power of informed dialogue to bridge divides. Here are a few questions to spark reflection:

1. How can political leaders reduce inflammatory rhetoric without compromising free speech?

2. What role should social media platforms play in curbing disinformation that fuels violence?

3. How can communities foster unity in the face of polarization?

Share your thoughts below or on our social channels. Together, we can advocate for a safer, more inclusive democracy.

Sources: Reuters, Bridging Divides Initiative, Allianz Risk Barometer 2025, PRRI, Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Vision of Humanity, Carnegie Endowment, Scientific American, The Guardian, Posts on X