US Political Violence Reaches Levels Not Seen Since the 1970s, Raising Concerns Over Democracy

Human Rights Research Center
29 minutes ago
6 min read

June 2, 2026

The Human Rights Research Center recognizes political violence as a threat to the rights to life, security, democratic participation, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and public accountability. States have a duty to prevent, investigate, and respond to political violence while ensuring that legal responses do not become a pretext for suppressing lawful protest, dissent, or political speech.

The United States is facing renewed concern over political violence after a series of targeted attacks, assassination attempts, threats against public officials, and public controversies over the glorification of alleged violence.

On May 18th, the issue returned to national attention in New York after three supporters of Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, appeared outside a court hearing wearing New York City press passes while making inflammatory remarks celebrating Thompson’s death.

The three women, who call themselves the “Mangionistas,” drew backlash after publicly celebrating Thompson’s killing while wearing official press credentials. One of the women, Lena Weissbrot, said Thompson’s children were “better off without him,” and another, Abril Rios, stated, “Why do we protect the Second Amendment so much — is it to allow people to shoot up schools, or is it to protect our democracy?”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said the supporters should not have been granted press passes, while city officials said the controversy raised questions about the process for issuing press credentials.

Mangione’s defense attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, released a statement condemning the comments as "vile and irresponsible," stating these individuals do not represent Mangione or his supporters.

Weissbrot later claimed that she would murder her mother if the circumstances aligned and her mother were a healthcare executive. Surely, there would be an opportunity for discussion instead of killing one’s own mother—here, violence is potentially viewed as a replacement for reasonable debate and intellectual inquiry.

The romanticization of Robin Hood is particularly notable in the Mangione case due to his appearance, which has garnered him the name “hot assassin” by The Sunday Times and roaring cheers on Saturday Night Live.

But beyond aesthetics, which risk lionizing Mangione further, lies a wider concern regarding human life. The moment became a flashpoint because it appeared to capture a broader question facing the US: whether political violence is becoming not only more frequent, but also more publicly rationalized, aestheticized, or treated as a form of political expression.

The data support a critique of healthcare egalitarianism. KFF, a health policy research organization, found that the number of uninsured people under 65 rose to 26.7 million in 2024, the first increase in the uninsured rate since 2019, while nearly four in ten uninsured adults delayed or skipped needed care because of cost.

Medical debt is also widespread. The Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker estimated that 20 million US adults owe medical debt, including about three million who owe more than $10,000, with total debt reaching at least $220 billion. Congressional findings have also documented denial-of-care concerns. A 2024 Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found that UnitedHealthcare’s post-acute-care denial rate rose from 10.9 percent in 2020 to 22.7 percent in 2022 as it expanded automated prior authorization processes.

However, supporters could have also volunteered at a hospital, peacefully picketed, donated to fundraisers for those in medical precarity, or lobbied for and debated one of the many healthcare reform bills up for consideration instead of calling for violence.

This may be paradigmatic of how societal issues can co-exist with the problem, not necessarily the solution, that US political violence is worsening.

On April 2nd, 2026, the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs reported new data from its Bridging Divides Initiative showing that political violence in the US is “on the rise.” The article said that 2025 saw “a serious escalation in the risk environment,” including high-profile assassinations and spikes in threats against officials.

“The data is clear: The risk of political violence intensified last year, and it’s continued to worsen so far in 2026,” Shannon Hiller, the executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative, said in the Princeton article.

The initiative’s report, Key Political Violence and Resilience Trends From 2025, dated February 11th, 2026, similarly warned that reported incidents of political violence increased in 2025, including multiple high-profile assassinations. It also found that targeted violence rose more than 30 percent from 2024 to 2025, threats and harassment spiked after high-profile attacks, and election-related threats remained a concern heading into 2026.

The figures are particularly stark for threats against lawmakers. In January, the US Capitol Police said it investigated 14,938 threat assessment cases in 2025 involving members of Congress, their families, staff, and the Capitol Complex. That was a sharp increase from 9,474 cases in 2024 and marked the third consecutive annual rise.

However, the available evidence does not support a sweeping claim that political violence overall is at an all-time high in US history. Researchers have cautioned that the US experienced higher levels of political violence in earlier periods, especially the late 1960s and 1970s. Scientific American reported in May 2026 that experts remain divided over whether the US is in a genuinely new era of political violence, noting that some historical datasets show far higher incident counts in 1970 than in recent years.

Nonetheless, political violence is undergoing one of its most serious sustained increases in decades since the 1970s. The recent pattern includes cases across the political spectrum.

On January 6th, 2021, a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol as Congress was certifying the 2020 presidential election results. More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and according to the Department of Homeland Security, one shooting, one heart attack, and two other medical emergencies resulted in death. The attack also marked the beginning of what Reuters later described as the biggest and most sustained increase in US political violence since the 1970s.

In July 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, with an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle. Trump was injured, one attendee was killed, and two others were critically wounded before Crooks was killed by Secret Service counter-snipers. The FBI investigated the shooting as an assassination attempt and a potential act of domestic terrorism.

Two months later, Ryan Routh was arrested after allegedly positioning himself with an SKS semiautomatic rifle near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.

In April 2025, Cody Balmer threw a Molotov cocktail at the Pennsylvania governor’s residence while Governor Josh Shapiro and his family were inside. Balmer later pleaded guilty to attempted murder, terrorism, arson, aggravated assault, burglary, and related charges. Prosecutors described the attack as politically motivated.

In June 2025, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, were killed with a semi-automatic handgun in a targeted shooting. State senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, were also seriously wounded. Federal prosecutors charged Vance Boelter in connection with the attacks, alleging that he targeted Minnesota legislators. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz described the shootings as targeted political violence.

In September 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed with a bolt-action rifle while speaking at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors charged Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder and said they would seek the death penalty, alleging that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his political expression.

That debate sits at the intersection of criminal law and human rights.

Under international human rights and domestic laws, political expression is strongly protected. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the US Constitution protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and the right to participate in public affairs.

But those protections do not extend to violence, true threats, or intimidation that prevents others from safely participating in public life. The UN Human Rights Committee has recognized that participation in public affairs includes public debate and political activity, although intimidation and coercion in political participation should be prohibited and enforced against. Likewise, under the US Supreme Court doctrine, the First Amendment does not protect narrow categories of speech such as true threats, fighting words, or incitement directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

Glossary

Democratic participation — The right of people to take part in public affairs, including voting, standing for office, public debate, protest, advocacy, and dialogue with representatives
Domestic terrorism — A category used in US law and policy to describe acts dangerous to human life that appear intended to intimidate or coerce civilians, influence government policy, or affect government conduct, though the US does not have a single standalone federal domestic terrorism offence equivalent to many international terrorism offences
Freedom of expression — The right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas, including political opinions and criticism, subject only to narrow and lawful restrictions
Political violence — The use or threatened use of force for a political purpose or motivation, including targeted attacks, intimidation, assassinations, threats, and violent attempts to influence public life
Suppression motion — A legal request asking a court to exclude evidence from trial, often because the defence argues that police obtained it in violation of constitutional or procedural rights
Threat assessment case — A case reviewed by law enforcement or security professionals to assess whether a communication, behavior, or incident may pose a risk of violence toward a protected person or institution
True threat — A serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence against a person or group, which may fall outside constitutional protection for free speech

References

HRRC accepts NO funding from governments for our research or campaigns. At every step of the way, our impact is made possible because of people like YOU. Make your contribution now!

US Political Violence Reaches Levels Not Seen Since the 1970s, Raising Concerns Over Democracy

Recent Posts