Everything You Know About Political Violence Is Probably Wrong

The threshold for what counts as a threat to political figures has demonstrably lowered, impacting their personal safety and public service.

Political violence in the United States has significantly risen since 2016, reaching levels not seen since the 1960s, according to an analysis of federal threat assessments, terrorism databases, and congressional security records. While right-wing violence has been more frequent and deadlier, often targeting elections and institutions, left-wing violence has been more common in protest settings, typically involving property destruction and clashes with police. Elected officials from both major parties, like Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have experienced direct threats and intimidation, highlighting that such violence is no longer confined to the fringes. The article points out that a lack of a standardized definition and reporting metric for domestic political violence contributes to public confusion and partisan disputes over the nature and extent of the problem.

The rise in political violence is not solely ideological but driven by broader forces like hardened identities, perceived existential threats, and declining institutional trust, amplified by elite rhetoric. This phenomenon is increasingly treated as a legitimate instrument of political pressure, moving closer to the center of American political life and touching officials across the spectrum.

Disagreements over defining and measuring political violence, particularly the absence of a stand-alone "domestic terrorism" offense in the U.S., fuel public confusion and partisan narratives. While federal agencies like the FBI and DHS track threats, their reporting often lags and lacks a single, consistent metric, making it difficult to assess the full scope and evolution of this violence.