The recent murder of political activist Charlie Kirk, an act the alleged perpetrator stated was motivated by Kirk’s political views, has created a palpable sense of alarm. The rising threats against lawmakers – and the murders of former Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband in June 2025 – have also raised concerns. Some lawmakers are now seeking legislative solutions. New Jersey State Senator Doug Steinhardt, for instance, introduced a proposal to classify political violence – including assault, arson, and threats – as a hate crime to ensure stricter penalties.
But do these high-profile events mean the U.S. is truly “in the grip” of a new, violent political era? The answer is critical. If, as journalist and political commentator Ezra Klein recently suggested, “violence is contagious,” it’s vital to know just how many Americans are willing to be “infected.” And if support for political violence is indeed widespread and growing, the consequences could be devastating, leading to more deaths, social unrest, and a potential crackdown on civil liberties.
At first glance, survey data seems to confirm our worst fears. For years, polls have shown that a significant minority of Americans express support for political violence (the reported ranges are often between 10% and 40%).
How do we gauge the willingness to commit political violence?
However, this wide range hints at a deeper measurement problem. The term “political violence” is vague and abstract. When one person hears the term, they might picture a protest that turns into a shoving match. Someone else might imagine an assassination.
This ambiguity makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. It also likely contributes to findings that individuals with strong partisan identities or populist views are more willing to endorse the concept of political violence. But without knowing how respondents interpret these questions, it is difficult to say whether apparent support for violence reflects a willingness to endorse actual physical harm.
A more precise approach is to ask about specific actions. The Polarization Research Lab has done just that, tracking public support for partisan murder over the last three years. The lab’s director, Sean Westwood, recently posted that in the weeks before Charlie Kirk’s assassination, support for partisan murder hovered around 3%. In the weeks after the Sept. 10 assassination, it fell to just 1% across the board (for Democrats and Republicans alike).
Few Americans embrace political assassination
Facing the concrete reality of political murder, Americans overwhelmingly reject it. While a concerning number of people may flirt with the abstract idea of political violence, it appears that their actual appetite for its deadliest forms is very low.
Further research from Westwood and colleagues reinforces this finding The survey data show that when people are presented with specific violent scenarios, the dominant response is to demand punishment for the perpetrator.
Beyond the fact that people conceptualize “violence” differently, there is another critical factor: Support for aggressive action often depends on who its target would be.
Instead of asking about various hypothetical targets, a recent study by Scott Clifford, Lucia Lopez, and Lucas Lothamer employed a creative design. They first asked respondents to name the political figure they believed was “doing the most harm” to the country. Unsurprisingly, many named either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. The researchers then asked follow-up questions: Would it be acceptable to punch this person, protest against them with weapons, send them threatening messages, or share their location online?
The distinction is important
The results draw a crucial distinction between violence and intimidation. While support for outright physical harm remained low, a non-trivial portion of respondents were willing to endorse acts of intimidation against the politician they most disliked. For example, nearly 20% supported sharing the location of their targeted political figure, a modern form of harassment.
These results suggest there is a real and concerning segment of the population whose animosity toward certain political elites is strong enough to make them support intimidation and aggression. That is sobering.
On the other hand, despite the intense political animus that drives much of current American politics, actual incidents of political violence remain rare. The public’s appetite for lethal and physically harmful violence remains low. The overwhelming majority of Americans, when confronted with specific acts of brutality, recoil. While the threat from a radicalized few is real, it’s crucial to remember they remain just that – a few.
Jan Zilinsky is a 2025-2026 Good Authority fellow.
