{
  "id": 9129069,
  "title": "Everything You Know About Political Violence Is Probably Wrong",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/22/everything-you-know-about-political-violence-is-probably-wrong",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-22T11:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Wired",
    "slug": "wired",
    "url": "https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-political-violence-robert-pape-our-own-worst-enemies/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In July 2022, Democratic representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington and her husband experienced an unsettling encounter. Men on bicycles screamed racial slurs and political threats before the house, prompting the couple to call the police. An officer arrived to find the men armed with a firearm, one of them shouting, \"Go back to India. I am going to kill you.\" Jayapal regarded the incident not as an isolated event but as a sign of a broader shift in American politics—where grievance becomes a justification for intimidation, and political expression is framed as justified violence. The threats continued unabated.\n\nRepresentative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a vocal supporter of Donald Trump, faced an equally intense barrage of threats over the years. She documented hundreds of death threats, primarily from ideological opponents. However, her shift in allegiance from Trump to former President Joe Biden marked a change in the nature of those threats. After Greene publicly criticized Trump—especially regarding the Epstein files, the Gaza conflict, and the evolving definition of \"America first\"—the threats escalated. One message directly threatened her son's life, even going so far as to claim a plane ticket had already been purchased. In November 2025, Greene announced her resignation from Congress, citing the unbearable pressure on her family. She stated, \"I think that comes to a point where any American can look at that and say that’s a high bar and way too much to ask.\"\n\nDespite their ideological differences, Jayapal and Greene share a common thread: they became targets in an era where political violence is no longer confined to the fringe. It is no longer clearly condemned by leaders and is increasingly seen as a legitimate tool of political pressure. This experience is not unique to them; it reveals a deeper transformation in American political life. Political violence has moved closer to the center, affecting elected officials across the political spectrum and becoming a recurrent feature of contemporary conflict rather than an isolated incident.\n\nThe data from federal threat assessments, terrorism databases, protest incident records, and congressional security reports paint a clear picture. Since 2016, political violence in the United States has surged, with both right-wing and left-wing violence becoming more prevalent and equally dangerous. While right-wing violence has been more frequent and deadly, left-wing violence has seen a rise in mass protest settings, such as the 2020 George Floyd protests and immigration-related clashes. These trends highlight the rise of violent populism, characterized by entrenched identities, perceived existential threats, eroding trust in institutions, and rhetoric that portrays politics as a battle between opposing forces.\n\nThe debate over whether political violence is on the rise and who is responsible for it is not solely ideological. It is also about differing definitions of what constitutes political violence. Scholars generally define it as the use or credible threat of physical force for political purposes, encompassing assassination attempts, armed assaults on public officials, bombings, arson, and organized plots to use force against political targets. However, it does not include ordinary criminal activity, interpersonal violence, or lawful protest, even when protests are disruptive or unlawful. The challenge lies in determining the intent behind such actions. Is a crowd burning a police precinct a form of political rebellion, criminal opportunism, or both? Is a gunman attacking a synagogue driven by antisemitic ideology, personal grievance, or a blend of mental illness and political belief? Similarly, is a death threat to a lawmaker an expression of rage, partisan trolling, or a precursor to real-world violence? Scholars offer varying interpretations based on different evidentiary standards, leading to diverse conclusions.\n\nThis complexity underscores the difficulty in quantifying and categorizing political violence. It highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the underlying forces driving this phenomenon. By recognizing the broader societal and political factors at play, we can better comprehend the evolving nature of political violence and its implications for our democracy.",
  "summary": "Public disagreement about whether political violence is rising and who is responsible for it stems not from ideology alone but from competing definitions about what should be counted.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}