OPINION: Political Violence Is Rising

There are two pathways to pursue, according to Phil Huber. One backed by research, one that Washington is increasingly leaning in to.

By Phil Huber
GUEST COMMENTATOR

Photo by Frederick Shaw on Unsplash

The third attempt on Donald Trump’s life is shocking, but it is not random. It comes at a time when more Americans worry that politics and violence are starting to mix, and when that fear is showing up even in everyday public life.

Across the country, researchers who track threats and attacks say serious political violence is rising again after a brief dip. Princeton’s Bridging Divides Initiative reports that 2025 saw a serious escalation in the risk environment, with more threats, more assassination attempts, and growing demand from local leaders for help with de-escalation. Public opinion reflects that alarm: a 2025 Pew survey found that 85 percent of Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing.

Yet there is another side to the story. When researchers ask clear, specific questions about whether violence is justified, most Americans still reject it outright. A major Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found that earlier surveys overstated support for political violence because of vague questions and inattentive respondents; once those problems were corrected, support for concrete acts such as assault, arson, or murder fell into the low single digits. Public Religion Research Institute likewise found that large majorities say political violence is never justified and that perpetrators should be prosecuted.

So, the United States now faces two paths. One path, supported by the research, would lower the temperature by expanding trusted participation, keeping election rules stable, protecting representation, and insisting on clear rejection of threats and violence from every side. The other path is the one Washington is increasingly taking: making it harder to vote, narrowing representation, and continuing rhetoric that teaches people to see politics as a battle that must be won at any cost.

That contradiction matters. Scholars who study democratic instability and political violence consistently find that risk rises when people believe the system is rigged, when lawful channels for change appear blocked, and when leaders frame every election as an existential emergency. In a heavily armed country with a steady stream of conspiracy theories and dehumanizing language, even a small minority willing to act violently can-do enormous damage.

This is why current Republican efforts on voting are so troubling. President Trump and House Republicans are pushing national election changes that would require documentary proof of citizenship, tighten voter ID rules, restrict mail voting, and ban ranked-choice voting in places that use it now. Supporters call this election integrity, but critics warn that these rules would hit young, elderly, poor, and minority voters the hardest while creating fresh confusion right before the 2026 midterms.

Even if these proposals are defended as administrative reforms, their political effect is clear. They tell millions of Americans that one side is willing to rewrite the rules before the votes are cast. That does not rebuild confidence. It feeds the grievance and distrust that researchers warn can push a small but dangerous fringe toward threats, intimidation, and, in some cases, violence.

The Supreme Court is moving in the same direction. Over several years, the Court’s conservative majority has weakened the Voting Rights Act and made it harder to challenge laws that burden Black and brown voters. Now, in Louisiana v. Callais, the justices are weighing whether a map with two majority-Black congressional districts, drawn after a finding that the old map illegally diluted Black voting strength, should be struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

That case may sound technical, but its meaning is plain enough for ordinary readers. If the Court undercuts majority-Black districts even where racial bloc voting has long denied Black communities’ fair representation, it will send a clear message that even legal remedies can be taken away when they become too effective. That weakens trust in the system at the very moment when the country needs people most to believe that change is still possible through ballots, courts, and organizing rather than force.

Virginia shows the same tension. On one hand, statewide homicides and violent crime have dropped from their pandemic-era peak, helped in part by focused anti-violence efforts such as Ceasefire Virginia. On the other hand, elected officials and public servants increasingly report threats as a routine part of public life, and political intimidation has spread from Washington and Richmond into school boards, local meetings, and community debates.

People in Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Stafford know what this looks like in everyday terms. They have seen public meetings where anger is high, compromise is rare, and too many people treat opponents not as neighbors with different views but as enemies to be crushed. That atmosphere does not automatically lead to bloodshed, but it makes violence easier to imagine and easier for unstable people to justify.

The answer is not to pretend that everything is fine, and it is not to respond to democratic strain with still more exclusion. The answer is to defend the practices that lower the risk of violence: broad access to the ballot, fair representation, consistent rules, real accountability for threats, and leaders who condemn violent rhetoric even when it comes from their own side. Most Americans are still on the side of ballots, not bullets.

But research and hope are not enough on their own. If the administration, congressional Republicans, and the Supreme Court keep making participation narrower, representation weaker, and democratic trust more fragile, they will be worsening exactly the problem they claim to fear. The danger facing the country is not only the violent act itself. It is the steady destruction of the guardrails that make violence less likely in the first place.

Local Obituaries

To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.