The apparent assassination attempt on President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on April 25 is a stark reminder: Political violence has no place in a democracy.
Citizens have countless avenues for peaceful engagement in our democracy – the ballot box, public protest, writing, speaking, organizing, campaigning, running for office, and much more. This is precisely to avoid violence, a foundational threat to our democracy which should be universally rejected across parties.
To stem political violence, national and local leaders and average citizens must tone down their rhetoric and adopt a more democratic, respectful and civic culture. All of us bear a responsibility to not fan the flames of political violence. (Our “We the People: Pluralism in Real Life” offers practical tips for citizens in a democracy to navigate peacefully a pluralistic society while maintaining their core beliefs.)
Political disagreements never justify violence against a political opponent. And yet, it’s increasing in the United States, threatening people on both sides of the aisle.
President Trump has faced three assassination attempts in less than two years. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home was set ablaze in a 2025 attempted assassination. Two Minnesota lawmakers – Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman – and their spouses were brutally attacked last year, killing Hortman and her husband and wounding Hoffman and his wife. Political activist Charlie Kirk was also gunned down in cold blood in 2025 at a rally on a college campus.
Paul Pelosi, husband of then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked by an intruder who broke into their home looking for the speaker in 2022. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others were violently targeted during a congressional team baseball practice in 2017. U.S. Rep. Gabby Gifford was shot in broad daylight at a constituent event in 2011by a gunman who killed six people and injured 12 others.
Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that in previous decades, violent acts were disproportionately perpetrated by the left or the right. Now, violence exists on both sides of the aisle.
Over the course of our 250-year history, four American presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1901), and John F. Kennedy (1963). Kennedy’s brother, Robert Kennedy, was killed while running for office in 1968 (the same year Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered), and George Wallace was wounded in an assassination attempt while running in for president in 1972.
While most Americans still see political violence as unjustifiable, a concerning 20% believe that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” according to a PPRI poll conducted in late 2025. The figure dropped slightly among Republicans and rose slightly among Democrats.
Naturally, in a diverse democracy, debate and disagreement will be part of the public square. But political leaders and citizens must be vigilant in ensuring that rhetoric doesn’t tip into toxicity and inciteful hatred from healthy disagreement and competition. These leaders bear a major responsibility to avoid language that incites or condones violence, dehumanizes their opponents, or suggests that violence is acceptable.
Following an attack like the one at the Washington Hilton, political leaders should seek unity and calm, regardless of the target, victim, and attacker’s motives. Political leaders should be quick to condemn the use of violence and ideally join with leaders of the opposite party in sending this message, thereby underscoring unity around our democracy.
Likewise, citizens play an important role through their own consumption and sharing of information – and falsehoods – on social media and in demanding high standards from their leaders.
Social media posts that sow division, glorify or misinterpret political violence, or dehumanize political opponents can contribute to a toxic information sphere that exacerbates political violence.
More in Common, a nonpartisan democracy organization, surveyed 5,000 Americans in January and found that “the more time people spend on social media, the more likely they think political violence is sometimes needed.” People who spend more than five hours a day on social media were more than twice as likely to support the statement “I feel that violence is sometimes needed to advance political causes in the U.S. today” than those who spend just one or two hours a day online.
Similarly, automatically assuming ill-intent by those on the other side of the aisle fuels division. More in Common found that “both Democrats and Republicans alike both vastly overestimate their political opponents’ support for political violence.”
So individuals should demand better from political leaders after acts of political violence. Leaders’ priority at times of crisis should be to calm the situation and look to unite against violence. Finger-pointing can come later.
About 75% of respondents to a Marquette poll conducted in November said that posting racist antisemitic or violent statements makes political leaders of both parties unfit for office.
Voters can and should reward candidates who decrease the toxicity of the public debate. The ballot box is a powerful tool in holding political leaders accountable if they contribute to division culture.
Political differences will always exist; that is the nature of a healthy democracy. Whether a democracy remains strong and functional or deteriorates and becomes violent ultimately comes down to how citizens and leaders choose to navigate political divisions.
