America’s New Threat: Tens of Millions Support Political Violence

The number one threat to America is not from a foreign government or a fringe militia group, but from tens of millions of Americans who support political violence. This support, now lodged in the mainstream, marks a new era of "violent populism." While political violence has occurred throughout American history, the current situation is unprecedented in its scale and the level of support for such actions.

The Unprecedented Era of Violent Populism

This era is characterized by historically high political violence and support for it, which is expected to significantly impact upcoming elections. Unlike past periods of civil unrest, such as during the Vietnam War or even the Civil War (which was over 160 years ago), the current climate is distinct. The 1960s, often cited as a period of intense social upheaval, was over 65 years ago, meaning few living individuals can personally recall it.

The current situation is an historical anomaly, not merely a continuation of past trends. Recent years have seen multiple assassination attempts against public figures, including three against Donald Trump (two while running for president, one while in office), an attempt against Nancy Pelosi's husband, and an attack on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Additionally, there was an arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home and the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus.

Beyond individual acts, there have been significant instances of collective political violence:

• George Floyd Protests (Summer 2020): While most of the 28 million participants engaged in peaceful protest, 5-7% were involved in violent acts, including burning police stations and destroying businesses. This violence often occurred at night, after peaceful daytime protests had concluded.
• January 6th Capitol Attack (2021): President Trump's rhetoric on December 19th, 2020, calling for supporters to come to Washington D.C. on January 6th, led to approximately 120,000 people gathering. During his speech, Trump explicitly directed the crowd to march to the Capitol. While 10,000 people surrounded the Capitol, approximately 1,600 individuals violently breached the building, attacking police officers with flagpoles and bike racks. Trump did not call off the rioters until three hours into the attack, and has since glorified the January 6th participants, pardoning all 1,575 individuals prosecuted. This event significantly radicalized a portion of the MAGA movement.
• College Campus Protests (Post-October 7th, 2023): From October 2023 through spring 2024, there were waves of violent protests on college campuses, primarily on the left. While less destructive than the George Floyd protests in terms of property damage, these events involved storming classrooms and libraries, causing fear among students.

What distinguishes this era of violent populism is its presence on both the right and the left. In contrast, the 1960s saw predominantly left-wing violent populism, while the 1920s were marked by right-wing violence. Today, both sides exhibit this phenomenon, often pointing fingers at the other while excusing violence within their own ranks.

The Numbers Behind Support for Political Violence

Research conducted over the past five and a half years, involving 20 national surveys, reveals alarming trends in American support for political violence. The most recent survey, completed just days before this discussion, shows a significant escalation.

• Anti-Trump Political Violence: Several years ago, support for anti-Trump political violence was around 6-9%. In September 2025 (prior to Charlie Kirk's assassination), it rose to 14%, representing over 30 million Americans. The latest data indicates that 25% of American adults, or 65 million people, support the use of force to prevent Trump from being president. This includes 44% of self-identified Democrats.
  • Further survey experiments and focus groups reveal that 55% of those who support "the use of force" to prevent Trump from being president mean assassinating him with rifles. Others envision a January 6th-style riot, but perpetrated by Democrats.
• Pro-Trump Political Violence: 16% of Americans, almost exclusively Republicans, support President Trump using the U.S. military to suppress democratic protesters. This equates to approximately 40 million Americans.

Combining these figures, roughly 100 million Americans support political violence as the country approaches the midterms. This suggests that the upcoming elections will be the most dangerous in living memory, with potential for violent protests larger than January 6th, particularly around the counting and certification of votes, likely on January 6th, 2027.

The Changing Nature of Political Violence

Historically, studies on political violence often focused on lone-wolf actors and were heavily influenced by the chosen time frame. While studies starting in 1990 might show a majority of violence coming from the right, those starting in 2015 would show a more balanced distribution, or even a majority from the left. This indicates a shift in the nature of political violence over the last decade.

The current era of violent populism, largely coinciding with the beginning of President Trump's first term, is characterized by both pro-Trump and "anti-anti-Trump" violence. This is not merely about personalities or political rhetoric, but deeper social changes. Trump is seen as both a symptom and a cause of these changes, which are pushing the country to a "tipping point."

The Archetype of Someone Who Supports Political Violence

The traditional stereotype of someone who engages in political violence—unemployed, rural, part of a militia, young, and male—is outdated. While this stereotype held true from 1990 to around 2014-2015, it began to change with Trump's presidency and dramatically shifted with the collective violence of January 6th.

The new archetype is often a well-educated, middle-class American with a stable job, a nice home, and a 401k. Examples include:

• Luigi Manion: From generational wealth, attended prep schools and an Ivy League university, lived a comfortable life in Hawaii.
• Cole Allen: A 31-year-old highly educated engineer, who in his manifesto, described himself as a "social justice warrior" making personal sacrifices for a cause.
• January 6th Participants: Analysis of the 1,575 individuals prosecuted for January 6th reveals that 45% were business owners, doctors, gynecologists, or nurse practitioners. These individuals were not "silly people wearing silly hats" or primarily militia members (only 10% were). They were people with "something to lose," often from affluent suburbs.

These individuals are motivated by a fear of losing everything they have or believe in, driven by the perception that the "other side" will dismantle their way of life or future.

The Drivers of Violent Populism

Two primary social drivers contribute to violent populism in the United States:

1. Demographic Shift: For the first time in its 250-year history, the U.S. is transitioning from a white-majority democracy to a white-minority democracy. In 1990, the population was 76% non-Hispanic white; today it is 57%. Within 15-20 years, it is projected to be 49%. This shift profoundly impacts political parties, particularly the Republican party, which is heavily white. Trump's rise, fueled by his stance on immigration, is seen by many of his supporters as an effort to stop or reverse this demographic change. Conversely, many on the left seek to accelerate this shift.
   • Surveys show that individuals worried about "white replacement" are four times more likely to support political violence for Trump. Those who believe America is a racist country are two and a half times more likely to support political violence against Trump.
2. Mass Wealth Shift: Since the late 1980s, there has been a significant shift of wealth to the top 1%. In the late 1980s, the top 1% controlled about 17% of America's wealth; today, it's 26%. This means the majority of the population is losing economic ground, leading to a sense of precarity. This economic anxiety combines with demographic fears, as people worry that the "other party" will further disadvantage them by helping their own constituents.

Both sides, including well-off individuals, are "petrified" that the opposing party will take away their comfortable lives or the future of their children.

The Normalization of Political Violence

The normalization of political violence is a cascading phenomenon, often lacking significant pushback from political leaders. While 65-70% of Americans abhor political violence, they represent a "silent majority" without a strong vehicle or leadership to express their opposition. Podcasts are one of the few platforms where this sentiment is being voiced.

The normalization of support for political violence creates a "wildfire" scenario. Just as dry wood can sit for months until a spark ignites a wildfire, mass support for violence can exist until a "focal point" triggers concrete action. January 6th serves as an example, where a buildup of anger and belief in a stolen election was ignited by Trump's speech, leading to violent action.

Individuals who commit political violence often believe they have social approval. The attacker of Paul Pelosi, for instance, apologized for failing to kill Nancy Pelosi, believing many people wanted her dead. Manifestos written by attackers, like Cole Allen's, often aim to connect with a perceived community of supporters, explaining their actions and embracing the affinity between their violence and the community's values.

The main problem is not the violent extremists themselves, but the people who sympathize with them. This mass sympathy translates into actual political violence, as seen in historical examples like the IRA in Northern Ireland and the Weather Underground in the U.S.

Global Trends and External Influence

Violent populism is also emerging in other mature democracies like Canada, Germany, and Britain, albeit with a slight lag compared to the U.S. For example, a storming of the Reichstag in Berlin occurred around the same time as January 6th.

Regarding external influence, studies suggest that foreign governments, like Russia's Internet Research Agency, can magnify existing social divisions by 10-20%, but cannot create them "out of whole cloth." The U.S. is largely "kicking the ball into its own goal." For instance, Iranian "Lego videos" attempting to embarrass President Trump and influence opinion on the Iran war have had little impact, as support for the war is primarily driven by pre-existing domestic cleavages rather than foreign propaganda.

Russia and China benefit most from America's civil unrest, as internal conflict distracts the U.S. from international affairs and can lead to foreign policy missteps.

The Role of Trump and Social Media

While Trump's influence is significant, it accounts for approximately 25% of the current civil unrest. Another 25% is attributed to social media and other factors, while 50% is driven by the underlying social changes (demographic and wealth shifts). Many people, whether pro- or anti-Trump, tend to overestimate his influence, or that of social media, often due to personal biases or concerns about their children's online consumption.

The focus on symptoms or secondary factors, such as deplatforming Trump or Tucker Carlson, has not diminished the underlying issues, as the anger and divisions are rooted in deeper social changes. The rise of new politicians, like Mandami on the left, who gain meteoric fame by addressing these core social change issues, further illustrates their profound impact. These are not mere policy disagreements but "existential politics" that are breaking the country apart.

The Escalation Trap

The country faces an "escalation trap" with three stages:

1. Legitimacy Shock: The election outcome is a razor-thin margin, leading the losing side to believe the election was stolen.
2. Focal Point: On January 6th, 2027, when Congress is set to certify the winner, there will be pressure from the losing side. If Republicans lose, Trump may encourage pressure on Congress. If Democrats lose, they may protest, and Trump has already spoken of using the military to suppress such protests.
3. Prolonged Violent Opposition: If stage two results in another January 6th-style event, it will lead to sustained violent opposition.

The current situation is highly dangerous, with political leaders largely failing to restrain their own constituents or address the underlying issues.