The Alarming Rise Of Political Violence In America: Patterns, Warning Signs, And The Path Forward

 

They often seem to strike from the shadows. A man opens fire on Donald Trump from a rooftop. An intruder brutally attacks Paul Pelosi with a hammer. A firebomb is thrown at the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion. A gunman, disguised as a police officer, targets Minnesota lawmakers at their homes.

While the attacks differ in location, method, and target, they all share a chilling thread: deep personal grievances transformed into violence against public officials. As political tensions simmer nationwide, these incidents underscore a dangerous and growing threat. Behind what seems like chaos, experts say, are identifiable warning signs—and a need for a stronger focus on prevention.

Different Stories, Similar Motives

Across these attacks lies a common foundation: perceived injustice and growing hostility toward those in power. The attackers often believe elected leaders are to blame for society’s problems or personal failures.

David DePape, who attacked Nancy Pelosi’s husband, admitted that his radical political beliefs and conspiracy theories motivated his actions. Prosecutors said he planned to take Speaker Pelosi hostage and was shocked she wasn’t home.

Ryan Wesley Routh, arrested at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course, left a letter accusing Trump of mishandling foreign policy and blamed him for unrest in the Middle East. He had prepared a sniper’s position on the course and left behind ammunition and farewell letters.

Cody Balmer, accused of setting fire to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence, claimed he was angry over Shapiro’s views on the Gaza conflict. He told 911 operators, “Our people have been put through too much by that monster.”

In Minnesota, Vance Boelter allegedly murdered state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and attempted to kill state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. He reportedly kept a list of over 45 elected officials—all Democrats—and had extensively planned the attacks using a hyper-realistic disguise and a vehicle made to resemble a police cruiser.

Another attacker, Thomas Matthew Crooks, shot at Trump during a campaign rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania, before being killed by Secret Service agents. His online activity showed an obsession with high-profile targets, including both Democratic and Republican leaders.

Not Just Lone Wolves

Though these attackers acted alone, they were not isolated from the broader influences that drove them. The FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit reports that violent extremists often show no consistent demographic profile but are drawn toward radical beliefs through a mix of personal frustration and online echo chambers.

Mary Ellen O’Toole, a retired FBI profiler, emphasizes the concept of “overvalued ideas”—beliefs that are not delusional, but extreme, unshakable, and viewed by the individual as justification for violence. These beliefs can harden over time, immune to persuasion or logic.

Boelter’s grandiose self-image, combined with repeated career failures and extremist ideology, may have contributed to his actions. He claimed to be on a mission to end world hunger and referred to his attack as going to war in a text to family.

Routh also displayed delusions of grandeur, publishing a bizarre book and addressing Iran directly with an apology for dismantling the nuclear deal. Crooks, meanwhile, researched historical assassinations and practiced at a gun range before targeting Trump.

Attacks Rarely Come Without Warning

Contrary to popular belief, most attackers don’t “snap.” Profilers and law enforcement agencies stress that these individuals often plan their actions meticulously and leave behind clear warning signs.

Crooks, for instance, visited the Trump rally site multiple times, flew a drone over it, and studied Lee Harvey Oswald’s tactics. Routh prepared sniper positions and left behind a letter stating: “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I failed you.”

Boelter was perhaps the most methodical. He assembled a disguise, equipped his vehicle to mimic a police SUV, and kept detailed notes on dozens of public officials, including addresses and family members. His notebooks outlined a clear intent to harm.

Prevention Is Possible

To address the threat, the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) has spent over two decades studying what drives attackers. Their focus is not on punishment, but on identifying and mitigating risks before violence occurs.

“We know the warning signs, we know the public observes these signs, and bystander reporting works if people are given an avenue to report concerns,” said Dr. Lina Alathari and Assistant Chief Steven Driscoll of NTAC. They stress that the goal is not prosecution, but intervention.

Their approach relies on shifting mindsets—from reacting after violence occurs to preventing it altogether. They believe communities, law enforcement, and mental health professionals all have a role in recognizing troubling behavior early and stepping in.

A Historical Context of Violence

The United States has long grappled with political violence. Four presidents have been assassinated. But the modern surge has intensified since the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection—a flashpoint for political extremism. That day saw rioters hunting lawmakers, chanting threats, and breaking into the Capitol with the intent to disrupt the democratic process.

According to the U.S. Capitol Police, the number of threats against members of Congress reached 9,625 in 2021, dipped slightly in 2022, but surged again in 2024 with 9,474 cases investigated. The rise in violent rhetoric—often amplified by political leaders themselves—has only fueled the trend.

Looking Ahead

The attackers now in custody—Routh, Balmer, Boelter—may offer insights during their trials into what motivated them, and whether our current political climate helped shape their decisions. What’s clear is that without serious efforts to detect and intervene, the risk of political violence will remain dangerously high.

In an era of hyper-partisanship and increasing alienation, the path to prevention lies in awareness, early intervention, and rejecting the normalization of violent rhetoric. The threats are real—and so is the chance to stop them.