Political Violence in America: A Growing Concern as 2026 Unfolds
The murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in September 2025 marked a disturbing milestone in America’s struggle with political violence. As perhaps the most high-profile victim of ideologically motivated violence last year, Kirk’s death has become a flashpoint in discussions about the deteriorating state of civil discourse in the United States. Authorities described the killing as a “political assassination,” noting that one bullet allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson was chillingly engraved with “Hey fascist, catch.” This detail has intensified debates about whether heated political rhetoric is increasingly manifesting as real-world violence. While investigations continue, the event has forced many Americans to confront uncomfortable questions about the direction of political disagreement in our society.
The alarming escalation of violence extends beyond high-profile figures to target government institutions and their representatives. In November 2025, the Department of Homeland Security reported a staggering 1,150% increase in assaults and violent attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers compared to the previous year under the Biden administration. This surge culminated in a tragic shooting at an ICE facility in late September, where one detainee was killed and two others injured. The alleged perpetrator, Joshua Jahn, reportedly had a handwritten note expressing hope that his actions would instill “real terror” in ICE agents. These attacks against law enforcement demonstrate how political grievances are increasingly being channeled into targeted violence against those seen as representing opposing ideologies or policies.
The pattern of ideologically motivated violence was perhaps most visibly demonstrated in two assassination attempts against Donald Trump. The first occurred on July 13, 2024, when 20-year-old Thomas Crooks fired multiple shots during a Butler, Pennsylvania, rally, one of which struck Trump in the ear. Just two months later, on September 15, 58-year-old Ryan Routh was arrested after authorities spotted him with a rifle in a sniper position near Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida. These back-to-back attempts against a presidential candidate (and now president) represented a shocking escalation in America’s political climate, suggesting that even the highest offices in the land are not immune to the rising tide of political violence.
Former FBI agent Jonathan Gilliam warns that we’re witnessing a dangerous normalization of political violence in America. Speaking with Fox News Digital, Gilliam pointed to public reaction following the assassination of an insurance CEO by Luigi Mangione, noting that “a large part of the population was somewhat OK with that and have made him into somewhat of a hero.” This shifting tolerance for violence is particularly troubling, as it suggests a fundamental breakdown in how Americans view political disagreement. The former agent explained that as violent acts become more common, there’s a gradual process where more people begin questioning whether such violence might be justified under certain circumstances. This represents a profound shift in societal norms that traditionally held violence as outside the boundaries of acceptable political expression.
The targeting of specific groups based on identity or belief systems has become another disturbing trend in America’s landscape of political violence. Gilliam highlighted increasing violence directed at Jewish and Christian communities, as well as against individuals attempting to engage in open dialogue across political divides. Rather than supporting constructive conversation, there appears to be a growing tendency to use violence to silence opposing viewpoints entirely. This pattern is particularly concerning because it undermines the very foundations of democratic discourse – the ability to disagree peacefully and work toward compromise through conversation rather than coercion. The targeting of religious and ideological groups also raises the specter of more organized extremism taking root in what was once primarily a landscape of lone-wolf attackers.
Perhaps most alarmingly, Gilliam believes that “political violence, as we know it now, has just started.” His assessment suggests that what we’re witnessing today represents only the beginning stages of a potentially much more dangerous trajectory. The increasing frequency of violent incidents, their growing sophistication, and the public’s shifting attitudes toward their legitimacy all point to a worrying future where political violence becomes a more regular feature of American life. This warning from a former FBI professional serves as a sobering reminder that addressing political violence requires not just law enforcement responses, but a broader societal recommitment to peaceful democratic norms and civil discourse. As 2026 unfolds, the question remains whether Americans can reverse this troubling trend before it becomes further entrenched in our political culture.
