If it is confirmed that the target of the shooter was indeed President Trump, it would be the third assassination attempt against him since the 2024 campaign. This event confirms a strong impression: that of the rise, even the trivialization of political violence in the United States. It could also be the opportunistic use of this violence by an increasingly unpopular regime that cannot conceive of its defeat.
An increasing portion of the population in this country, from left to right, believes that political differences can no longer be resolved peacefully. The president himself alludes to this periodically. Today, he is reaping the effects of his inflammatory rhetoric.
According to a PBS News/NPR/Marist poll from fall 2025, in the aftermath of the assassination of right-wing ideologue Charlie Kirk on September 10, approximately 30% of Americans believe that political violence may be necessary – more Republicans think so, slightly fewer Democrats. This marks a significant increase from the 19% recorded by the same organization, a year and a half earlier, with the same questions.
Political violence, and specifically the political assassinations of leaders, have existed since time immemorial. Julius Caesar, assassinated in 44 BC by a group of senators, is the most famous example from antiquity.
In modern times, the United States is far from having a monopoly on such violence, even though, in the democratic world, shielded from war for 80 years, and on the terrorism front within, the United States stands out from what is seen here or in Europe.
The list is well known: in 1865, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, killed by a southern militant at the end of the Civil War. In 1881, another president, James Garfield, was assassinated while boarding a train at Washington central station. In 1901, William McKinley was killed by an anarchist.
The most infamous case: the assassination, on November 22, 1963, of John F. Kennedy by a “lone wolf,” Lee Harvey Oswald. Long before the social media frenzy, he inspired hundreds of increasingly complex conspiracy theories.
There are the unsuccessful attempts, like that of John Hinckley against Ronald Reagan, two months after his inauguration in 1981. This other lone wolf was trying to attract the attention of a famous actress by a “bold gesture.” A uniquely twisted motivation, showing that attacks against presidents are not always necessarily driven by hate or ideology. Human madness also plays a role.
Political violence in the United States erupts in waves. The 1960s and 1970s were those of extreme left-wing urban guerrillas motivated by the Vietnam War, the extension of civil rights to African Americans, etc. These were the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, and other “liberation armies” (SLA, Symbionese Liberation Army), who exploded bombs and killed innocents.
In the 1990s, there was a trend reversal. Between 1994 and 2020, according to the FBI, far-right terrorists carried out 57% of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States, compared to 25% by far-left terrorists, with the rest being the work of individuals with no clear direction or Islamists. It is noteworthy that, with the vast exception of September 11, 2001, Islamist attacks in the 21st century are much less frequent and significant in the United States than in Europe.
In recent years, far-right attacks have been responsible for over 90% of deaths. Between 2022 and 2024, according to the Anti-Defamation League, all 61 recorded political homicides were committed by right-wing extremists.
The return of Donald Trump to power may be accompanied by a resurgence of far-left political violence. The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempts against the president could be potential signs. But beware: in the same year, a Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota and her husband were assassinated; the residence of the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania was targeted by an arsonist.
The escalation of violence – in both actions and minds – has been undeniable since the attack on the Capitol in January 2021 by pro-Trump fanatics and white supremacists (including prominent Proud Boys and neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes). On that day, the incumbent president declared: “I couldn’t care less if they have weapons. They’re not here to harm me.”
Could this climate of latent violence justify exceptional measures on the eve of midterm elections that are shaping up to be very bad for the Trump regime? Close associates of the president have repeatedly stated that elections should not take place if the necessary conditions are not met.
Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago specializing in political violence, notes: “We are living in the era of violent populism.”
To contact the author: francobrousso@hotmail.com
