The United States is facing a crisis not just of governance, but of civility. The country is witnessing levels of political violence unseen since the turbulent 1970s.
This is not simply ramped‐up protests or policy disagreements; this is violence aimed at people, rooted in partisan identity, ideology and a bitter sense that the other side is not just mistaken but morally corrupt.
From Property to Person: The Shift in Target and Tone
In earlier decades, much of political violence—though deeply troubling—was directed toward property: bombings, arson, disrupting institutions. The aim was symbolic: make a statement, force change through visibility rather than directly inflicting bodily harm. But today’s pattern is sharper, darker. The investigation shows that the majority of recent deadly incidents are committed by individuals with far‐right ideological leanings, and that these attacks often target individuals rather than symbols.
Take the case of Anthony King in Ohio, one among more than 200 incidents documented since the Capitol riot of January 2021. King was shot three times in the head by his neighbour, a man who believed him to be a Democrat—a belief that appears to have been wrong. That violent act, in King’s own yard, encapsulates the dangerous drift.
Rising Tide of Partisan Hostility
Criminologists and scholars quoted in the report trace a clear uptick in political violence starting around 2016. That corresponds with the first presidential run of Donald Trump. Whether one views Mr. Trump as cause, symptom or catalyst, the evidence suggests he occupies a central place in the current environment—not necessarily as instigator of violence, but as someone whose rhetoric, political style and polarising presence correlate with the acceleration of extreme behaviour.
Underlying this are multiple fault lines: economic dislocation, especially in long‐neglected parts of the country with decaying industrial infrastructure; demographic change and ethnic diversity; pandemic trauma. These have compounded to produce anxiety, fear and resentment. But more than these material sources is the linguistic and cultural war: a replacement of policy disagreement with moral judgement, demonisation of opponents, and a sense among many that the nation is under existential threat—not simply politically, but culturally.
Who’s Doing What: Disparities in Agency and Impact
What is striking in the data is the asymmetry. While there are individual incidents traced to the political left (and some to other ideological sources), most of the documented fatal attacks are traced to actors with right‐wing motivations. Of 18 deadly political attacks since January 2021, accounting for 39 deaths, 13 of those attacks (34 deaths) involved perpetrators or suspects espousing clear right‐wing beliefs.
This is not to say that the left is wholly innocent or uninvolved—but that the scale, lethality and frequency of right‐wing motivated acts exceed that of their counterparts in recent years. Meanwhile many lesser incidents—sharper verbal threats, intimidation, property damage—border on the invisible nationally even when devastating locally. It is the everyday local violence—between neighbours, at county lines, even among people who know each other—that is arguably the more worrying trend for the long run.
Definitional Challenges, Silent Suffering
An important strength of the Reuters analysis is its attention to definitions: what counts as “political violence,” and what does not. By excluding official agents (e.g. police acting in their capacity), excluding spontaneous hate crimes unless clearly ideological or partisan, the report draws a relatively “clean” line around what it considers political violence.
But even so, the number of incidents that go unrecorded, are underpublicised, or are dismissed as “isolated” or “mental illness” complicates the accounting. The King case, for example, features attempts by the defence to attribute the act to mental health rather than ideology.
Moreover, many incidents elude public outrage precisely because they involve people of modest means, living in places far from metropolitan media centres, or because the victims are less “newsworthy.” And yet the cumulative effect is corrosive: people in certain communities installing bulletproof glass at election offices; election workers living under threat. These are signs not of isolated pathology, but of a widespread breakdown in confidence in political dialogue, and in the shared belief that democratic contestation happens without fear of violence.
Warning Signs: Social, Political, Legal
The report identifies several trigger points which are likely to exacerbate violence if not addressed. First is the rhetoric from elites—media, political leaders, organisational voices—that explicitly or implicitly demonises the “other side.” Claiming that opponents are traitors, invaders, enemies of the state or corrupt in fundamental ways reduces the space for political compromise. It also lowers the psychological barrier to treating them as legitimate targets for aggression.
Second, institutional stress: contested elections, claims of electoral fraud, and the sense that the mechanisms of democracy are vulnerable or underpoliticised. When large swathes of the population believe that electoral outcomes are not fair, violence becomes more thinkable. Reuters documents threats against election workers, local election offices installing defensive measures, etc.
Third, social media and echo chambers. As in many modern democracies, the U.S. has seen accelerated fragmentation of information ecosystems. People consume political news—and misinformation—which reinforce polarisation, deepen resentment, amplify outrage. Violent imagery, threats, and calls for violence spread rapidly, sometimes anonymously, and sometimes without correction.
Fourth, mental health, economic insecurity, and community breakdown are amplifiers, not root causes. Almost every major violent incident has at least some dimension of personal crisis—job loss, isolation, substance abuse, despair. But these do not justify political violence; rather, they suggest that resolving the crisis will require social investment and public mental health response, not just policing.
What the United States Can Learn—and What the World Must Watch
Strengthening norms over laws: Laws against violence exist, but norms around acceptable political behaviour are fraying. Reaffirmation of civil norms—by politicians, media, institutions—is essential. Where leaders speak of “unity” or “shared identity” without caveat, it matters.
Better data, clearer definitions: Because so much of this violence is “off radar,” greater clarity in what counts and more systematic tracking at federal, state, local levels are required. Reliable data enables intervention before tragedies escalate.
Community engagement and de-escalation: Projects aimed at healing civic divisions, encouraging local conversation across political lines, and amplifying voices that reject violence may help. The lack of “other side” voices matters: in many places, the neighbour becomes “the enemy.”
Media responsibility: Sensationalism, amplification of fringe voices, or one‐sided coverage that frames political opponents as existential threats feed into this mood. A more balanced coverage —with accountability for those whose rhetoric stokes violence—could slow down the drift.
A Country Tested—but Not Yet Defeated
The United States is going through one of its most perilous phases of internal discord. Reuters’ findings are deeply alarming—not only for the loss of life, but for what they tell us about the weakening of the unspoken pacts that make democracy work: that adversaries contest today’s issues but recognise each other’s right to debate, vote, disagree. When contests end not at the ballot box but with bullets or knives, something fundamental is broken.
Yet history offers some solace: previous eras of intense violence (the 1960s and 1970s, “Red Scares,” etc.) did not end America, though they inflicted profound harm. Whether today’s era will follow that arc depends on the choices of leaders, of communities, of ordinary citizens. It depends on whether political violence becomes a defining norm, or a warning, resisted at every level.
America has a decision: to resist descending into permanent internecine conflict, or to let fear, rage and division redefine what it means to live in a republic. The yearning for unity is not yet dead—but it must find new life in deeds, not merely words.
Charlie Kirk killing intensifies scrutiny of political violence in the United States
