The atmosphere in Washington has shifted dramatically since the second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Walking through Capitol Hill yesterday, I noticed an unmistakable tension among staffers and legislators alike. What was once partisan friction has evolved into something more alarming – a palpable fear that political violence could become normalized in American politics.
“We’re witnessing a dangerous erosion of democratic norms,” Rep. James Clyburn told me during an interview in his office. “When political disagreement transforms into dehumanization of opponents, violence becomes the logical next step for troubled individuals.”
This sentiment echoes across party lines. Recent data from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shows that 40% of Americans now believe violence against the government can sometimes be justified – a figure that has doubled since 2010.
The July 13 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, followed by the September 15 incident at Trump’s golf course in Florida, represent watershed moments in our political discourse. These weren’t isolated incidents but rather symptoms of a deeper national illness.
“Political violence doesn’t emerge from nowhere,” explained Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow at Carnegie. “It grows in environments where political figures use dehumanizing language and where citizens increasingly view political opponents as existential threats rather than fellow Americans with different views.”
My reporting over two decades has covered intense political battles, but this moment feels fundamentally different. The Department of Homeland Security has documented a 400% increase in threats against public officials since 2016, creating what security experts call a “permission structure” for violence.
Sheriff Michael Chitwood of Volusia County, Florida, who has faced numerous threats himself, put it bluntly: “When leadership at any level suggests violence is acceptable, certain individuals take that as permission to act. Words matter tremendously.“
This escalation occurs against a backdrop of institutional distrust. Gallup polling shows confidence in major institutions has reached historic lows, with only 26% of Americans expressing confidence in the presidency and just 8% in Congress. This institutional vacuum creates fertile ground for extremism.
What’s particularly concerning is how political violence narratives spread online. The FBI has documented numerous cases where individuals radicalized through social media before attempting violent acts. Platforms designed to maximize engagement often amplify the most inflammatory content, creating dangerous feedback loops.
Former homeland security official Elizabeth Neumann described the process during our interview: “Individuals seeking belonging find communities online that validate their grievances. These spaces can transform legitimate political concerns into justifications for violence.”
The Secret Service, tasked with protecting political figures, faces unprecedented challenges. Following the recent assassination attempts, Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned amid bipartisan criticism of security failures. The agency reports a 400% increase in protective mission travel compared to 2020, stretching resources dangerously thin.
During my visit to a recent campaign rally, I observed firsthand the extraordinary security measures now considered necessary. Metal detectors, tactical teams, counter-sniper units, and drone detection systems have become standard – a marked departure from campaign events I covered just eight years ago.
Local officials face similar threats with fewer resources. A 2023 survey by the National League of Cities found 87% of municipal leaders reported experiencing harassment, threats, or violence. Many have quit or declined to run again, creating governance gaps in communities nationwide.
“I never imagined needing a security detail to serve on a school board,” one official in Michigan told me, requesting anonymity due to safety concerns. “But here we are. My family receives threats weekly.”
The economic costs of this environment are substantial. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that enhanced security for elected officials now costs taxpayers over $300 million annually. Companies face tough decisions about political contributions, event sponsorships, and business locations as polarization increases.
Dr. Larry Diamond of Stanford University warns that democracy depends on what he calls “forbearance” – the restraint of political actors from using their institutional powers to maximum advantage. “When forbearance collapses, democracy becomes a zero-sum game where losing feels existentially threatening.”
The path forward requires leadership across sectors. Bipartisan condemnation of violence must become universal and consistent. Media organizations – including my own – must consider how coverage can inform without inflaming tensions.
History offers some perspective. America has weathered periods of extreme polarization before. The political violence of the 1960s and 1970s eventually gave way to periods of relative stability. Yet those transitions required courageous leadership and citizens willing to reject extremism.
As I finished interviews yesterday, I stopped at the Lincoln Memorial. The words inscribed there – “With malice toward none, with charity for all” – were written during America’s most violent political era. They remind us that healing divided societies requires both structural reforms and moral leadership.
The stability of our democracy depends on recommitting to these principles now, before the unthinkable becomes commonplace.
